Waiver & Dickerson Flashcards
North Carolina v. Butler
Held: An explicit statement of waiver is not invariably necessary to support a finding that the defendant waived the right to counsel guaranteed by the Miranda case. The question of waiver must be determined on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, and there is no reason in a case such as this for a per se rule, such as that of the North Carolina Supreme Court. By creating an inflexible rule that no implicit waiver can ever suffice, that court has gone beyond the requirements of federal organic law, and thus its judgment cannot stand, since a state court can neither add to nor subtract from the mandates of the United States Constitution
Moran v. Burbine - Knowing and Voluntary
Two requirements must be met before a suspect can be found to have waived their miranda rights:
The relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that i was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than due to intimidation, coercion, or deception
The waiver must have been made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it
The Scope of the Interrogation—Colorado v. Spring
Held: A suspect’s awareness of all the crimes about which he may be questioned is not relevant to determining the validity of his decision to waive the Fifth Amendment privilege; accordingly, the ATF agents’ failure to inform respondent of the subject matter of the interrogation could not affect his decision to waive that privilege in a constitutionally significant manner.
(a) A confession cannot be “fruit of the poisonous tree” if the tree itself is not poisonous
(b) A confession cannot be “fruit of the poisonous tree” if the tree itself is not poisonous
(c) Mere silence by law enforcement officials as to the subject matter of an interrogation is not “trickery” sufficient to invalidate a suspect’s waiver of Miranda rights.
The Inadmissibility of a Previous Confession—Oregon v. Elstad
Held: The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require the suppression of a confession, made after proper Miranda warnings and a valid waiver of rights, solely because the police had obtained an earlier voluntary but unwarned admission from the suspect
Efforts of a Lawyer to Contact the Suspect—Moran v. Burbine
(a) The police’s failure to inform respondent of the attorney’s telephone call did not deprive him of information essential to his ability to knowingly waive his Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and to the presence of counsel.
(b) Miranda’s reach will not be extended so as to require the reversal of a conviction if the police are less than forthright in their dealings with an attorney or if they fail to tell a suspect of an attorney’s unilateral efforts to contact him.
Scrupulous Honor—Michigan v. Mosley
Held: The admission in evidence of the respondent’s incriminating statement did not violate Miranda principles. Respondent’s right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored, the police having immediately ceased the robbery interrogation after respondent’s refusal to answer and having commenced questioning about the murder only after a significant time lapse and after a fresh set of warnings had been given respondent.
Berghuis v. Thompkins
A defendant may implicitly waive his Miranda rights by failing to invoke his rights after fully understanding them and embarking on a course of conduct that indicates waiver. Thompkins argues that his statements are inadmissible because he invoked his right to remain silent by staying silent for a long period of time. This argument fails because a defendant must invoke his Miranda rights unambiguously.
Bright Line Rule—Edwards v. Arizona
When an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to police-initiated interrogation after being again advised of his rights. An accused, such as petitioner, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused has himself initiated further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.
Waiver
Waiver—needs to be done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
- Voluntary: Colorado v. Connelly—the police didn’t force the individuals to talk
- Knowingly: Moran v. Burbine—Events occurring outside of a suspect’s presence and entirely unknown to him can have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right.
a. Once it is demonstrated that a suspect’s decision not to rely on his rights was uncoerced, that he at all times knew he could stand mute and request a lawyer, and that he was aware of the State’s intention to use his statements to secure a conviction, the analysis is complete and the waiver is valid as a matter of law.
b. The level of the police’s culpability – whether intentional or inadvertent – in failing to inform respondents of the telephone call has no bearing on the validity of the waivers.
c. Miranda rights are not applicable to cover third parties
- Intelligently: Colorado v. Spring—individual need not know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege, for the waiver to be done intelligently
