The Miranda Rule Flashcards
The Miranda Rule
a. Created by the Court in______ v. ___; it governs all custodial interrogations by state and federal law enforcement actors and is based on the 5th amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.
i. Triggered by:
(1) ______and
(2) interrogation
ii. The core of Miranda=________
iii. Miranda warnings=
(1) right to _____
(2) any you say ____
(3) right to______
(4) right to appointed______ if you cannot not afford a lawyer
IV. The Miranda Rule
a. Created by the Court in Miranda v. Arizona; it governs all custodial interrogations by state and federal law enforcement actors and is based on the 5th amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.
i. Triggered by:
(1) custody and
(2) interrogation
ii. The core of Miranda=voluntariness
iii. Miranda warnings=(1) right to remain silent (2) any you say can and will be used against you (3) right to counsel (4) right to appointed counsel if you cannot not afford a lawyer
The Miranda Rule
Confessions and Self-Incrimination
i. Brown v. Mississippi⇒
ii. How to meet the voluntariness standard: under the totality of the circumstances, Δ’s statement was a product of free will .
- Involves objective factors→
- Involves subjective factors→
The Miranda Rule
Confessions and Self-Incrimination
i. Brown v. Mississippi⇒where Δ’s statement is obtained by the police through means of coercion that renders it involuntary, the due process clause of the 5th amendment requires a trial court to exclude the statement
ii. How to meet the voluntariness standard: under the totality of the circumstances, Δ’s statement was a product of free will .
1. Involves objective factors→length of detention, its duration and intensity, the use of deception and promises of leniency
2. Involves subjective factors→age, education, mental instability, sobriety, familiarity with the criminal justice system
Miranda
The Totality Test in Practice
- Use of force or threatened use of highly determinative of involuntariness. Like in Arizona v. Fulminante.
i. Spano v. New York→
c. Deception
d. Promises of Leniency
i. Lynumm v. Illinois→Δ’s confession of selling marijuana was involuntary because the officers told her if she didn’t cooperate, she would get 10 years, lose her kids, and lose financial aid for kids.
Miranda
The Totality Test in Practice
- Use of force or threatened use of highly determinative of involuntariness. Like in Arizona v. Fulminante.
a. Facts→Δ was incarcerated, and was approached by an informant who offered to protect him from “rough treatment” if told him the truth about a rumor that he had killed his stepdaughter.
b. Holding→The confession was involuntary because of the credible threat of physical violence. - Other techniques
a. Lengthy interrogations that break the suspect down
b. Pressure tactics
i. Spano v. New York→Confession was involuntary when the 25-year-old foreign born man with only 1.5 years of high school and a history of emotional instability was interrogated for hours even though he had invoked his right to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer.
c. Deception
d. Promises of Leniency
i. Lynumm v. Illinois→Δ’s confession of selling marijuana was involuntary because the officers told her if she didn’t cooperate, she would get 10 years, lose her kids, and lose financial aid for kids.
Miranda: right to remain silent
Right to Silence Before Arrest
i. Salinas v. Texas⇒
1. Facts⇒
2. Holding⇒
Miranda: right to remain silent
Right to Silence Before Arrest
i. Salinas v. Texas⇒
1. Facts⇒Δ was questioned about a shooting that occurred, and he was not Mirandized. Δ answered every question until he was asked whether the shotgun shells found at the scene would match his gun. The prosecution attempted to admit his silence into evidence.
2. Holding⇒The 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination doesn’t extend to Δ who decide to remain mute during questioning. The right must be explicitly revoked.
The Constitutionality of Miranda
i. After Miranda, its constitutionality was questioned.
It was held to be a prophylactic rule in Oregon v. Elstad
ii. The constitutionality of Miranda was reaffirmed in __________ v. United States
1. Rationale⇒Miranda has become so embedded in routine police practice, and it is a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede.
The Constitutionality of Miranda
i. After Miranda, its constitutionality was questioned. It was held to be a prophylactic rule in Oregon v. Elstad
ii. The constitutionality of Miranda was reaffirmed in Dickerson v. United States
1. Rationale⇒Miranda has become so embedded in routine police practice, and it is a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede.
Miranda Rules: Custody
- Custodial Interrogation=
- If there is no formal arrest then an objective test must be used to determine if a person is in custody:
a. How would a __________
b. If a person is not ________ ________ restrained then he or she is not in custody.
For example a person detained during a traffic stop is not and custody and Miranda does not apply because (1) traffic stops are generally brief and (2) people don’t feel like they are at the mercy of the police during a traffic stop.
Miranda Rules: Custody
- Custodial Interrogation=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
- If there is no formal arrest then an objective test must be used to determine if a person is in custody
a. How would a reasonable man in the suspect’s position understand his situation
b. If a person is not significantly restrained then he or she is not in custody. For example a person detained during a traffic stop is not and custody and Miranda does not apply because (1) traffic stops are generally brief and (2) people don’t feel like they are at the mercy of the police during a traffic stop.
Miranda Rule: Custody Cases:
- Yarborough v. Alvarado⇒ miranda not triggered
Miranda Rule: Custody Cases:
- Yarborough v. Alvarado⇒
a. Facts⇒Δ, a 17 year old was brought in for questioning about a homicide. His parents remained in the lobby during his 2-hour questioning. Δ was not Mirandized, but he admitted to involvement in the murder.
b. Holding⇒Δ was not in custody, so Miranda was not triggered
c. Rationale⇒The custody inquiry is objective and meant to give clear guidance to the police, but considering age would be subjective.
Miranda Rule: Custody Cases:
- Howes v. Fields⇒prisoners in custody
Howes v. Fields⇒
a. Facts⇒Δ was serving a prison sentience when he was taken into a conference room and questioned about new/unrelated offenses. He was never Mirandized, but told that he was free to leave.
b. Opinion⇒A prisoner is not always in custody for Miranda purposes and imprisonment alone is not enough to trigger Miranda because (1) questioning someone in prison isn’t as shocking as questioning a newly arrested suspect (2) the prisoner is less likely to be lured into speaking in hopes of a quick release (3) a prisoner is more likely to know that his questioners lack the authority to affect the length of his or her sentence.
Miranda Rule: Custody Cases:
- JDB v. North Carolina⇒ child’s age can be an objective
- JDB v. North Carolina⇒
a. Facts⇒Officers interrupted class and escorted Δ, a 13 year old, to a conference room to question him about breaking and entering. He wasn’t Mirandized or given the opportunity to speak with his grandmother (his legal guardian). He then was told he would be put in juve, after which he was Mirandized and confessed.
b. Holding⇒So long as the child’s age is known to the officer at the time of questioning or is objectively apparent to a reasonable officer then its inclusion into the custody analysis is constituent with the objective nature of the test.
Miranda Rules: Interrogation and Waiver of Rights Versus Invocation of Rights
- The test for interrogation comes from Rhode Island v. Innis.
a. **Words or actions by a police officer that are a ________equivalent” to express questioning.
b. This is an_______ test in which words or _____constitute a functional _______if the police should know the words or actions are “reasonably likely to _____ an_______ response.”⇒Innis Test
Miranda Rules: Interrogation and Waiver of Rights Versus Invocation of Rights
- The test for interrogation comes from Rhode Island v. Innis.
a. **Words or actions by a police officer that are a “functional equivalent” to express questioning.
b. This is an objective test in which words or actions constitute a functional equivalent if the police should know the words or actions are “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”⇒Innis Test
Miranda Rules: Interrogation and Waiver of Rights Versus Invocation of Rights
The definition of interrogation has since been narrowed by characterizing brief interactions as “on the scene questioning”
a. Ex: interaction that occurs after a drunk-driving arrest
b. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada⇒
Miranda Rules: Interrogation and Waiver of Rights Versus Invocation of Rights
- The definition of interrogation has since been narrowed by characterizing brief interactions as “on the scene questioning”
a. Ex: interaction that occurs after a drunk-driving arrest
b. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada⇒requiring Δ to give his name after police had received an anonymous tip would not incriminate him because it would not furnish a link in the chain of evidence to prosecute him. - Adequacy of Warnings
Miranda: Adequacy of Warnings
a. Content:
i. The suspect must be informed that he/she has the ______ to _______ silent.
ii. Must explain that what’s said can and will be used against him/her
iii. Must clearly inform him of his right to consult a lawyer and of the lawyer to be present during the interrogation
iv. Must be warned that if he/she is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed.
b. California v. Prysock⇒ warnings are to be interpreted as a ______.
Miranda: Adequacy of Warnings
a. Content:
i. The suspect must be informed that he/she has the right to remain silent
ii. Must explain that what’s said can and will be used against him/her
iii. Must clearly inform him of his right to consult a lawyer and of the lawyer to be present during the interrogation
iv. Must be warned that if he/she is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed.
b. California v. Prysock⇒ warnings are to be interpreted as a whole. I
Miranda: Waiver of Rights
a. Statements that are made during a custodial interrogation can’t be admitted without
i. A showing that he or she was given ______.
ii. That he or she______ Miranda.
iii. The waiver was effective
b. In Miranda, the Court held, that Δ could waive Miranda if the waiver was made (1) ______ (2) ______ (3) and intelligently.
c. The _______ has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a waiver is valid.
Miranda: Waiver of Rights
a. Statements that are made during a custodial interrogation can’t be admitted without
i. A showing that he or she was given Miranda
ii. That he or she waived Miranda
iii. The waiver was effective
b. In Miranda, the Court held, that Δ could waive Miranda if the waiver was made (1) voluntarily (2) knowingly (3) intelligently
c. The government has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a waiver is valid.
Miranda: waiver in fact
Waiver in Fact
North Carolina v. Butler⇒an express statement of waiver wasn’t needed when Δ refused to sing the Miranda form and stated that he understood
Miranda: Waiver in fact
Waiver in Fact
i. North Carolina v. Butler⇒an express statement of waiver wasn’t needed when Δ refused to sing the Miranda form and stated that he understood
Miranda: knowing and intelligent waiver
Knowing and Intelligent
i. This analysis focuses on suspects’’ ability to understand the warnings and consequences of speaking.
Berghius v. Thompkins⇒ Facts: Holding⇒ Rationale⇒An invocation of the right to remain silent must be done so unambiguously.
Miranda: knowing and intelligent waiver
Knowing and Intelligent
This analysis focuses on suspects’’ ability to understand the warnings and consequences of speaking.
Berghius v. Thompkins⇒
Facts⇒Δ was arrested for a shooting in MI, and he was interrogated in a small room for 3 hours. He was given a form that was derived from Miranda, which he declined to sign. He was silent for most of the interrogation, but gave one-word answers at times. Then in the last 15 minutes, after being asked if he believed in God, he said he had committed the murder.
ii. Holding⇒A suspect who has received and understood Miranda warnings and has not invoked his right to remain silent waives the right by making an uncoerced statement to the police.
iii. Rationale⇒An invocation of the right to remain silent must be done so unambiguously.
