Test 3 (Miranda Rights)

Question 1

Custodial Interrogation

Answer 1

questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way

Question 2

Inculpatory statements

Answer 2

statements tending to show guilt

Question 3

Exculpatory statements

Answer 3

statements tending to show defendant is NOT guilty

Question 4

Miranda Rights do NOT apply to (2):

Answer 4

1. noncustodial interrogation

2. Spontaneous Statements = police is not required to stop someone form a confession

Question 5

Brewer v. Williams (post Miranda) case summary

Answer 5

case: Williams was accused of killing a 10 yr old girl; William’s lawyer (McKnight) informed the officers the he received a call from Williams and that he had advised Williams to turn himself in. Williams surrendered that morning to the police in Davenport, and he was given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona.
In the presence of the Des Moines chief of police, McKnight advised him that Des Moines police officers would be driving to Davenport to pick him up, that the officers would not interrogate him or mistreat him, and that Williams was not to talk to the officers about Pamela Powers. It was agreed that the Des Moines police officials would bring him directly back to Des Moines and that they would not question him during the trip.
Detective Leaming knew that Williams was a former mental patient, and knew also that he was deeply religious. Not long after leaving Davenport Detective Leaming delivered the “Christian burial speech.” The detective said: …since we will be going right past the area on the way into Des Moines, I feel that we could stop and locate the body, that the parents of this little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl…I feel we should stop and locate it on the way in rather than waiting until morning and trying to come back out after a snow storm and possibly not being able to find it at all.”
Leaming then stated: “I do not want you to answer me. I don’t want to discuss it any further. Just think about it as we’re riding down the road.” The car continued towards Des Moines, and as it approached Mitchellville, Williams said that he would show the officers where the body was. He then directed the police to the body of Pamela Powers.

Question 6

What was the significance of Brewer v. Williams

Answer 6

Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. Before trial, his counsel moved to suppress all evidence resulting from any statements Williams made during the ride from Davenport to Des Moines. After an evidentiary hearing the trial judge denied the motion. He found that “an agreement was made between defense counsel and the police officials to the effect that the Defendant was not to be questioned,” The judge ruled that Williams had “waived his right to have an attorney present during the giving of such information.”

Williams petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court. The District Court concluded as a matter of law that the evidence in question had been wrongly admitted at Williams’ trial. This was based on three alternative and independent grounds: (1) Williams had been denied his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel; (2) he had been denied the constitutional protections defined by Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, and Miranda v. Arizona; and (3) in any event, his self-incriminatory statements on the trip had been involuntarily made. Further, the District Court ruled that there had been no waiver by Williams of the constitutional protections in question.

*** the Court basically stated that “questions or STATEMENTS by police designed or intended to invoke a response could NOT be used

Question 7

Remedy for Violation of Miranda Rights

Answer 7

Does NOT equal dismissal; the remedy is “exclusion of the confession and any other evidence discovered b/c of the confession”

Question 8

Inculpatory and Exculpatory statements (in relations to violations, what can and cannot be used)

Answer 8

both inculp and exculp cannot be used if one’s Miranda rights have been violated. Excuplatory statemetns are included as a Miranda right in cases where one is caught for lying

Question 9

significant of the 6th amendment in relations to Miranda Rights

Answer 9

the courts used the right to counsel from the 6th amd. to apply to the 5th amd. of self incrimination

Question 10

5th amendment

Answer 10

1. no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (self incrimination clause)
2. no person shall be subject in the same case to be put in jeopardy of life or liberty (double jeopardy clause)

Question 11

Double jeopardy (what constitutes it)

Answer 11

a. as long as the facts are NOT the same
b. in cases of concurrent jurisdiction (state and federal), Federal court can try the same person for the same crime, using different facts (such as in a case of a bank robbery, the state court will hold trial for “aggravated robbery: using force and a weapon to commit theft” and if found not guilty, the federal court can come in and hold trial for “bank robbery: using a weapon to commit theft from a Federal institution”

Question 12

Miranda Rights

Answer 12

a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires”

Question 13

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 13

Miranda was arrested and taken to a police station where he was interrogated by 2 police officers for 2 hours, which resulted in him signing a written confession. At trial the confessions were presented to the jury and Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count; on appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in getting the confession.

• the US Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona

Question 14

Vignera v. New York

Answer 14

Vignera was picked up by police in relations to a dress shop robbery. He was taken to various detective headquarters where he orally admitted to the robbery and was then questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers. The oral confession and the transcript were presented at trial; he was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction without opinion.

• the US Supreme court reversed the judgment of the New York court of Appeals

Question 15

Westover v. United States

Answer 15

Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in 2 robberies. A report was also received form the FBI that he was wanted on felony charge in California. He was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police; then FBI agents continued the interrogation. After 2 1/2 hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions to each of the robberies in California. He was convicted of robberies and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each count. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit.

• the US Supreme court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Question 16

California v. Stewart

Answer 16

Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in a robbery where the victim died of injuries. He was arrested at his home along with his wife and 3 other people visiting at the time. He was placed in a cell and over the next 5 days was interrogated on 9 different occasions. During the 9th interrogation, he stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had not meant to hurt her. Stewart’s statements were introduced at trail and he was convicted of robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised of his rights to remain silent and his right to counsel

• the US Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California

Question 17

self incrimination is:

Answer 17

saying something that establishes or indicates your guilt

Question 18

The right not to betray yourself came from…

Answer 18

John Lundeberg who refuse to incriminate himself; it became a rallying cry in England and a fundamental right in the US constitution

Question 19

The fundamental principle is that one is ___________. The burden of proving someone’s guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt) rest with __________.

Answer 19

The fundamental principle is that one is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proving someone’s guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt) rest with the government.

Question 20

In 1963, the US Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright,

Answer 20

that everyone has the right to a lawyer at trial whether or not one can afford one (everyone assumed this only referred to “in court”)

Question 21

In 1964, Escobedo v. Illinois, the Supreme Court recognized

Answer 21

that suspects needed a lawyer even before their trial

Question 22

the significance of Dickerson v. US (2000)

Answer 22

it upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona

• Dickerson had been arrested for bank robbery and for using a firearm during a crime of violence, both federal crimes. He moved to suppress statements he made to the FBI because he had not received the Miranda warnings before he spoke to the FBI. The district court suppressed the statements, and so the government appealed. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court, reasoning that § 3501 had superseded and replaced the requirement that the police give the Miranda warnings because Miranda was not a constitutional requirement and therefore Congress could overrule that decision by legislation. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case.
• .Did Congress have the authority to pass such a law? The protections outlined in Miranda, are protections mandated by the Constitution. Therefore Congress, through a federal law, can not overrule Miranda. The United States Supreme Court is not willing to overrule Miranda, and therefore the statements should be suppressed.

*** the decision’s core ruling that unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief