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
