statements, confessions, self-incrimination

Question 1

involuntary statements

Answer 1

statements obtained by actual coercion are involuntary and inadmissible for any purpose

triggers due process clause of 5th and 14th amendment.

Question 2

coercion

Answer 2

government conduct that overbears the free will of a suspect

assessed based on totality of the circumstances:
-the defendant’s age, health, education, intelligence, gender, and cultural background;
-the location, duration, and physical conditions of interrogation;
-the number and demeanor of police officers, and the suspect’s experience with the criminal justice system; and
-any deception or trickery by the police.

Question 3

5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination

Answer 3

any person in any proceeding (civil or criminal) may refuse to answer a question if her response might incriminate herself

available only for compelled, testimonial statements
-testimonial: verbal or communicated evidence
-compelled- elicited or induced

Question 4

exceptions when 5th amendment privilege does not apply

Answer 4

1. witness/D granted immunity
2. privilege is waived; or
3. incrimination is impossible (SOL has run)

Question 5

waiver

Answer 5

occurs from the mere act of answering police or prosecution questions

Question 6

immunity

Answer 6

use and derivative immunity: Prohibits police from using evidence derived from the witness’s testimony against him in a criminal proceeding.
-For the evidence to be admissible in a future trial, the police must prove it was derived from a source wholly independent of the testimony.

transactional immunity: prohibits any future prosecution of the witness for the transaction that is the subject of the testimony

Question 7

Miranda rule

Answer 7

states that no statement made by a D will be admitted into evidence unless, prior to custodial interrogation, the D is given certain warnings and rights were not waived.

*miranda warning triggered by custody plus interrogation

custody = no right to leave
interrogation = direct questioning, or, words that a reasonable officer knows or should know will elicit an incriminating response

Question 8

Miranda rights

Answer 8

-to remain silent;
-that anything said can be used against them in court;
-that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney; and
-that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided.

Question 9

waiver of miranda rights

Answer 9

police must obtain a voluntary and intelligent waiver of these rights

a waiver cannot be presumed from silence

Question 10

invoking miranda rights

Answer 10

if suspect makes an unequivocal request for an attorney or states they wish to remain silent, all interrogations must stop.

right to remain silent: police must allow a significant time to elapse and then obtain a new miranda warning.

right to counsel: police may not resume questioning until:
-counsel is present,
-the D re-initiates contact with police and executes new waiver; or
-at least two weeks have passed since the D was returned to their normal environment and police obtain new waiver

Question 11

limitation of miranda violation

Answer 11

A Miranda violation does not result in the exclusion of other evidence derived from the inadmissible statement because it does not trigger the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

Question 12

public safety exception to Miranda warnings

Answer 12

An officer can question a suspect without violating Miranda for public safety concerns (e.g. to determine the location of a weapon, find accomplices, etc)

Question 13

miranda and undercover police agents

Answer 13

if police use an undercover agent to question a suspect who is in custody, it does not trigger the miranda warning and waiver requirement. The suspect has to know he is being questioned by a government agent.

Question 14

Are statements taken in violation of Miranda rights admissible to impeach

Answer 14

yes if D takes the stand

Question 15

invocation of Miranda right is not offense-specific

Answer 15

That means that the “re-initiation” rules apply to any offense that the police seek to question the suspect about, even if it is a different officer from a different jurisdiction.

Question 16

statements made in violation of 6th amendment right to counsel

Answer 16

any statement obtained by police from the D related to the crime he is formally charged with is inadmissible unless:
-his lawyer was present; or
-he executed a knowing a voluntary waiver

*6th amendment right to counsel is triggered by the initiation of formal adversarial process and exists during all critical stages of the adversarial process

**6th amendment right to counsel of offense-specific.

Question 17

layperson eliciting statements from D while acting on behalf of government

Answer 17

Absent an effective waiver and after formal charges have been filed, this violates 6th amendment right to counsel

Question 18

fruits of illegal conduct

Answer 18

Statements may still be tainted if they are the “but for” consequences of a predicate constitutional violation, like an unreasonable search or seizure.