TEST 4 Flashcards
Agnello v US (1925)
Court created a “full-blown rule of exclusion at federal trials”; LEOs seize cocaine from house illegally but court didn’t suppress; SC said BAD search and expanded rule beyond papers to include contraband cocaine;
Arizona v Fulminante (1991)
Harmless error; killed 11 yo stepdaughter then left state; convicted of another federal crime, info leaked in prison that he killed her. Undercover guy in prison, goes to Fulminante and offers protection in return for confession; he confesses, later gets out of prison and confesses to undercover guy’s wife also; gets tried based on confession to him; involuntary confession; SC said confession NOT good cuz NOT voluntary. NOT harmless error; w/o confession, conviction would not have been made and only made for protection
Arizona v Mauro (1987)
Guy being held for murdering his son; doesn’t want to speak without a lawyer; his wife asks to speak to him; say yes, but only if LEO is present; conversation was recorded and used to convict; motion to suppress because goes against Miranda rights; question over it was “functional equivalent” to interrogation since LEO could think a confession was possible if he saw his wife; SC said NOT functional equivalent of interrogation, statement was voluntary and therefore GOOD statement
Berguis v Thompkins
Thompkins was involved in a shooting; arrested a year later; given his rights in interrogation room in multiple ways; eventually confessed because LEOs brought his religion into it; question of whether he had actually waived his right to remain silent; SC said GOOD confession; he knew his rights, and could have remained silent when asked about praying for forgiveness for the shooting
Berkemer, Sheriff of Franklin County v McCarty (1984)
Issue over whether or not McCarty was in custody; pulled over for weaving out of lane; LEO asked if he was drinking, says yes, gets out of car and does balancing test; he had been drinking and smoking weed; formally placed under arrest and taken to jail; SC said in the initial stop, when he first confessed to drinking while driving, he wasn’t in custody so no mirandizing was needed; After the failed sobriety test, LEO knew he was going to arrest him so miranda applies, therefore, there was a violation of the 5th amend
Brewer v Williams (1977)
Kidnapped a girl and dumped her dead body; LEO said right thing to do was to tell so she could have good christian burial; motion to suppress statement b/c it was deliberately elicited; SC said violation of 6th because they deliberately elicited a statement without him having a lawyer present
Brown v Mississippi (1936)
Coerced confession; beat confession out of tenant farmers; SC said BAD confession because it was coerced, DP was violated
CA v Prysock (1981)
???Minor arrested for murder; advised of rights but he declined to talk; his parents showed up, reinformed of rights, then he gave a statement; motion to suppress because he was not properly advised of his right to counsel; SC said good statement because he was clearly advised of his rights multiple times
Connecticut v Barrett (1987)
Barrett in custody for sexual assault. Given his rights 3 times. After 1st, refused to give written statement, but would talk about what happened; after 2nd and 3rd time, he refused to talk without counsel; so LEO wrote down the confession he made orally and submitted into evid.; No evidence showed the suspect was threatened, tricked or cajoled to talk; SC said spoken rather than written confession is still a confession- GOOD
Colorado v Connelly (1986)
connelly confessed to murder without prompting; previous patient in a mental institute; said God told him to kill himself or fly to Denver to confess; LEO mirandizes him; psych said he was still functioning well enough, even with command hallucinations; SC no violation of 14th in statement because it was volunatry; he was not in custody or interrogated, it was voluntary and knowing
Crane v Kentucky (1986)
Crane is minor charged with murder; before trial, tried to suppress his confession-denied because it was voluntary; tried to introduce testimony about the interrogation to show unworthy confession; ct said testimony was inadmissible; SC said exclusion of the testimony violated DP rights under 14th;
Davis v US (1994)
????? Suspect must waive rights unambiguously
Duckworth v Eagan (1989)
Being questioned for a stabbing; given rights and signed waiver; interviewed again 29 hours later and signed another waiver, then confessed and led LEOs to evid; tried to suppress confession because first waiver did not comply with miranda requirements because LEO said given counsel “if and when yu go to court”; SC said informing suspect that counsel would be give “if and when you go to court” does not render mirandized rights inadequate
Edwards v Arizona (1981)
All questions must stop until lawyer comes or they begin the conversation again after he invokes rights; SC said BAD confession because viol. of 6th rights- no attorney present
Escobedo v Illinois (1964)
Escobedo killed his bro-in-law; gets arrested; asks for lawyer; his attorney was there but LEOs wouldn’t let him see him; escobedo confessed; SC said BAD confession because he didn’t have his counsel- violation of 6th (this is before Miranda)- 6th no longer applies here because of Miranda, but it did then
Herring v US (2009)
Herring went to police station to pick up stuff from impounded car; known to law enforcement; LEO asked clerk to look for any warrants on Herring, found one, so they followed him out of the station, pulled him over and arrested him, finding a firearm and meth; Turns out the warrant had been recalled 5 month earlier; so was evid illegally seized or does good faith rule count? SC said GOOD search because basically good faith
Illinois v Perkins (1990)
Perkins in jail for battery. Suspected of homicide. Undercover officer put in cell with him to ask incrim questions (about the homicide he hasnt been charged for); SC said GOOD- no violation of 6th because he had not been charged for that crime; 5th amen not violated because he wasn’t in custody for the murder; if he would have been interrogated for the battery, there would have been violations
Jacobson v US (1992)
Jacobson had recieved child porn in mail before it was illegal, then soon after it was illegalized; gov got name off mailing list and started sending him fake stuff to get evid; eventually he got some child porn in the mail and was arrested; tried to suppress evidence because he was pressured into getting it; SC said Jacobson wasn’t predisposed to possess child porn; conviction REVERSED- not enough evidence outside of gov-provided stuff to prove he would have bought the child porn anyway
Kuhlmann v Wilson (1986)
Kuhlmann in jail for prior robbery and murder; put informant in cell with him to listen for incrim statements (but not to ask the questions); tried to suppress because violated 6th right to counsel; denied because informant only in there to keep his ears open to info about his involvement in the robbery and murder; issue over if the informant doesn’t ask any questions, are the spontaneous statements still admissible? SC said YES! Statements are good because no incrim questions were asked
Maine v Moulton (1985)
Cannot record conversation between 2 co defendants after indictment- violates the 6th amend
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
LEOs thought wanted person was in Mapp’s home; eventually burst in with fake warrant, she resisted them being there, but they ended up searching and finding obscene material hich she was arrested for; tried to suppress because illegally obtained; SC said BAD search- exclusionary rule applies
Michigan v Mosley (1975)
Mosley arrested for robberies; given miranda warnings and declined to talk so LEO stopped asking; hours later another LEO came in and mirandized, then questioned about an unrelated murder; made incrim statement; tried to suppress because broke miranda rule rights to remain silent; SC said no violation; after remirandizing, new crime in question so new set of rights that he knew he had the right to remain silent and he didn’t
Minnick v Mississippi (1991)
2 guys escape from prison, killing 2 guards in the process; Minnick caught and brought back; mirandized, chose not to waive rights and asked for counsel; met with counsel, and after, LEOs continued interrogation; still didn’t sign waiver but disclosed info; question over whether interrogation can continue after a request for counsel, regardless of whether counsel was consulted or not; SC said NO interrogation cannot continue after request for counsel even if consulted with- lawyer must be present
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Miranda arrested in his home for kidnapping and raping a girl; LEOs ask him questions without advising him of rights; confesses and signs thing saying he knew his rights but says he wasn’t offered a lawyer; appealed saying he wouldn’t have confessed if he had known his right to lawyer and right to remain silent; SC said NOT GOOD- violated rights; brought 5th amend rights to pre-charge interrogations
NY v Quarles (1984)
Public safety exception; woman says shes been raped and points out guy who went into store; LEOs go in to search; Quarles had ditched the gun so LEOs ask where it is; he was in custody and asked an inculpatory question, so does miranda apply? SC said GOOD search because it was a matter of public safety;
Nix v Williams (1984)
INevitable discovery exception; had been suspected of murdering little girl; WIlliams led LEO to body, after illegal questioning; question of whether evid could be admitted because of illegal questioning. SC said GOOD because they would have discovered the body anyway by the legal search party
OR v Mathiason (1977)
issue of whether or not he was in custody; Mathiason is a parolee; suspected of B&E; LEO goes to house, not htere, so he leaves his business card; he agrees to go to station to talk; told he’s not under arrest; LEO told him they suspected him, he confessed; LEO then mirandized him and took confession; SC said statement WAS voluntary; he was told he was free to go, so no need to mirandize, he was not in custody
Orozco v Texas (1969)
4 LEOs go in Orozco’s room at 4am and start questioning him about a shooting; SC said even if he was at home in bed, he was in custody, because he was deprived of liberty in a significant way, therefore VIOLATION OF 5th against self incrim.
Rhode Island v Innis (1980)
Cab driver arrested for robbing and killing another cab driver; LEO mirandized, he asked for lawyer; on way to station, LEOs talked about how close to handicapped school they were, and how bad it would be for kid to find the gun; Innis told them where the gun was; issue over whether the LEOs can interrogate on way to station- was he being interrogated? SC said it was NOT FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT of an interrogation. The didn’t know their convo would elicit a confession from him. NO VIOLATION
Schmerber v CA (1966)
Guy gets in drunk wreck; taken to hospital and while there, takes blood sample to see BAC; taking blood samples against someone’s will does not compel them to be a witness against themselves SC said NO break of 5th amend
Silverthorne Lumber Co v US (1920)
broadened the Weeks rule; Silverthorne and his father were arrested; LEOs went to lumber co and seized a bunch of papers and such without authority; took copies of papers and used them to get subpeona for originals; refused to hand over and got jailed for contempt; this case restricted the exclusionary rule to private papers; SC said bad search- it was an outrage
Spano v NY (1959)
Coerced confessions- Spano is in a bar when money gets taken by ex-boxer; goes after him and gets beat up, so goes and gets gun and shoots him; calls lawyer friend for help, tells him to say nothing; LEOs wore him down without giving him a lawyer until he confessed; SC said NOT GOOD- he was coerced and pressured, so confession not voluntary
US v Henry (1980)
sitting in jail, indicted; informant put in with him to elicit incrim statements; SC said violation of 6th amend because of improper questioning
US v Leon (1984)
GOOD FAITH RULE; excluding evidence is not a constitutional right, its a prophylactic rule (protective procedure against violations of constitutional rights)
Weeks v US (1914)
Weeks was at work when LEO break into house and seized all sorts of stuff, leading to arrest for illegal gambling; gov wouldn’t give his stuff back; SC reversed conviction and made them give his stuff back because illegal S&S- began movement towards exclusionary rule to enforce LE violations of const rights
Wolf v Colorado (1949)
Changed court ruling to say that the 14th amend DP clause applies to right against unreasonable S&S to states, so that the exclusionary rule is part of the right
What are the 3 areas to the 5th amen right against self incrimination?
- interrogation
- confession
- incriminating statements
What amendments do we use to analyze interrogating confessions?
14- right to DP
6- right to counsel during incrWim statements
5- right against testimonial self incrim
4- incriminating violation of search and seizure
What is the DP approach to confessions?
Confession must be voluntary, for reliability purposes; ToC tells voluntariness
What are the three rules for involuntary confessions?
1) compulsion
2) Harmless error
3) Appeal to the jury
What is compulsion?
only official compulsion will render it involuntary; has to come from LEOs; “no person shall be compelled…”
What is Harmless Error?
erroneously admitted into evidence- not enough error to reverse conviction- other evid points towards guilt
What is Appeal to the Jury?
defense has right to tell jury how the confession was obtained;
What is the difference between the 5th and 6th amendments?
5th applies up until charges are filed, then the 6th applies after person has been charged IN CUSTODY INTERROGATION
What is the black letter law?
6th amend right to counsel is offense-specific: so for ex: if def wants an attorney for a specific crime, before charged, have to request. For another crime, have to re-request (IM NOT SURE ABOUT THIS)
T/F: If a guy rapes a girl and says “you know you like it”, in the lineup, only hearing the voice does not violate the 5th amend
TRUE
T/F: Silence is a right to presume guilt/innocence
FALSE: it ISN’T; you can still keep questioning them until they say they don’t want to talk anymore without a lawyer
Who has burden of proof to show suspect knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived rights to 5th and 6th?
STATE
T/F: You can make a statement about the def not testifying
FALSE: they have the right to not testify;
T/F: Mirandizing can be carried out by an informant
FALSE only LEOs
When is someone in custody?
Any time authority deprives a person significantly of their freedom
T/F: If interrogated, while not in custody, miranda still applies
FALSE: only IN CUSTODY INTERROGATION
What are 3 types of detention that don’t qualify as custody?
- Detaining drivers/passengers during routine traffic stop (Berkemer v McCarty)
- Req. probationers to attend routine meeting with their prob. officer (Minnesota v Murphey)
- Detaining persons during the execution of search warrants
T/F: Spontaneous statements w/o mirandizing cannot be used against you
FALSE they CAN
T/F: When askin routine booking questions and they have problems answering, miranda does not apply
TRUE (need info)
What is the right to remain silent?
right to not say anything prior to/during interrogation if they don’t want to- applies to questioning about that particular crime only
What is the right to counsel?
right to ask for counsel prior to/during investigation; must stop questioning about ALL crimes (???)
