Week 3

Question 1

important thing to remember

Answer 1

Don’t waive your miranda rights!!

Question 2

Moving Into an Interrogation

Answer 2

Field Research
- 4 out of 5 suspects waived in their miranda rights (in the 70s)
- “The defendant who does not ask for counsel is the very defendant who needs counsel”

Laboratory research
- 81% of innocent suspects waive their rights vs 36% of guilty suspects

Question 3

Police Interrogation of Innocent Suspects

Answer 3

Interrogation Training Manual
- “Reid manual”
- Most used manual and interrogation training in the US
- Recommendations for interrogation techniques and nine step process

Question 4

Q: Do your interrogation methods ever cause innocent people to confess?
A: No, because we don’t interrogate innocent people.

Answer 4

Presumption of guilty before going to court
- Problem

Police have leeway; can lie about evidence against you; can make it uncomfortable for you; can talk to you for a long time; no clocks; no natural lights; things to make you physically uncomfortable to make you want to leave and self incriminate yourself

Question 5

Miranda Rights

Answer 5

US Supreme Court Case
- Adult case
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

As a result, confessions are not allowed as evidence unless suspect was told (before questioning)

Right to remain silent and anything said can be used against him/hehr
Right to an attorney
Right to a state appointed attorney if indigent
Can reassert these rights at any time throughout an interrogation

Question 6

Custodian interrogation

Answer 6

Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations

“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 you are in custody → you will know when they read you your miranda rights
A statement made during a custodial interrogation cannot be used against someone unless the proper procedural safeguards are provided (i.e., Miranda warning)

NOTE:
If someone is questioned by the police but NOT in custody (i.e., free to leave), police do not have to read Miranda and statements can be used

Question 7

After suspect has been read Miranda, he or she has the option to:

Answer 7

1. Invoke Miranda rights (i.e., not talk, request attorney) OR
2. Waive Miranda rights (i.e., talk to police without attorney)

Question 8

IF suspect chooses to WAIVE Miranda and answer questions….

Answer 8

anything said may be used against him in court AS LONG AS the suspect is COMPETENT to waive his rights

Waiver was made KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, INTELLIGENTLY

If suspect not competent → statement is suppressed and cannot be used in court

Question 9

competency

Answer 9

Competency is measured - bar is very low

Time of alleged offense, arrest, and trial – different evaluations for competency needed to take place for each

Sanity vs insanity - time of the arrest
Competency - time of interrogation
Competency - to stand on trial

Question 10

Malingering

Answer 10

playing incompetent so you can get out of jail; planning to pretend to be not competent

• Assessment / test you fill out
• Consistency and validity measures

Question 11

Juveniles and Miranda

Answer 11

Miranda comprehension decreases with IQ
11-13 years (58% impaired)
14-15 years (33.3% impaired)
16-17 years (7.8% impaired)
Yet most states do not have a separate warning for juveniles

Not all states require that adult be present when minor is read his/her rights

Even when adult is present, waiver rates do not decrease as many parents urge the child to cooperate with police

Question 12

Is a Parent Required to be Present?

Answer 12

A child shall not be questioned pursuant to this section unless he and a person required to be notified pursuant to subdivision three if present, have been advised: (a) of the child’s right to remain silent; (b) that the statements made by th child may be used in a court of law; (c) of thee child’s right to have an attorney present at such questioning; and (d) of the child’s right ott have an attorney provided to him without charge if he is indigent

Question 13

When is a Youth in Custody?

Answer 13

JDB v. North Carolina (2011)

Question 14

JDB v. North Carolina (2011)

Answer 14

13 year old student questioned at length by UPO in school
- Re: recent break ins

JDB eventually confessed

Argued he was in custody and not provided with Miranda warning

Low courts = not in custody

Supreme Court = age should be considered in determination

Question 15

Miranda Warnings standardization?

Answer 15

Miranda warnings are NOT standardized

At least 31 different versions of Miranda warnings are currently used - some of the differences are substantive

Out of 371 juvenile warnings, 87.6% of warnings varied in language (only 12.4% had identical wording)

Question 16

Reading comprehension is one way to evaluate the complexity of Miranda warnings

Answer 16

Many adult offenders have difficulty understanding Miranda written above 7th grade reading level

40% of juvenile warnings had an average length of 322 words

2.2% written at college level

52.1% required at least an 8th grade education

Only 7.3% at or below 5th grade level

Question 17

Miranda Warnings: Waivers

Answer 17

1.7% of waivers caution that “reassertion of rights will not undo any past inculpatory admissions”

86.1% of waivers specifically ask suspects to waive rights, rather than asking suspect whether they wish to waive their rights

Many emphasized the positive “opportunity” of waiver

Only 14.9% included parent/adult waivers

• And no description of parent’s role provided (i.e., child’s reliance on parent’s advice for waiver decision)

Question 18

Role of Forensic Evaluator

Answer 18

When defense attorney argues that juvenile was not competent to waive Miranda, and that any statements made should be suppressed (i.e., not used against the juvenile court), judge looks at “totality of the circumstances” in making decision

Fact that suspect is a juvenile does not automatically mean that he or she is not competent to waive rights

Forensic evaluator may come in to evaluate the circumstances, assess the juvenile’s capacity, and provide expert testimony with regard to juvenile’s competency to waive Miranda rights

Question 19

Under the doctrine of parens patriae, judges had the authority to act in loco parentis and to consider individualized responses to meet specific needs of each youth

Answer 19

The legal doctrine that permits the state of “act in place of the parents”

Question 20

Litigation explosion

Answer 20

Rapid escalation of case filings before appellate courts, often based upon a landmark case extending rights to particular segments of the population, such as jail or prison inmates or juveniles

1. Litigation is the process of resolving a dispute in a court of law. It involves filing a lawsuit, exchanging information, and possibly going to trial.
2. The term “litigation explosion” refers to the increasing number of lawsuits filed in the United States and the perceived burden that litigation places on society.

Question 21

Hands-off doctrine

Answer 21

Policy practiced by the federal courts in which official court policy was not to intervene in matters relating to juvenile issues; belief that juvenile judges are in the best position to make decisions about welfare of juveniles

Question 22

Kent v. United States (1966)

Answer 22

Established the universal precedents of requiring waiver hearings before juveniles could be transferred to the jurisdiction of a criminal court (except by legislative automatic waivers, although reverse waiver hearings must be conducted at the juvenile’s request)

Facts of the case:
1959 - A 14 year old boy was apprehended as the result of housebreakings and attempted purse snatchings. He was placed on probation in the custody of his mother.

1961 - An intruder entered the apartment of a woman, took her wallet, and raped her. Fingerprints at the crime scene were later identified as those of Morris Kent, who had been fingerprinted when apprehended for housebreaking earlier. Now age 16, he was taken into custody and interrogated for seven hours by the police. He admitted his gully and even volunteered information about other housebreakings, robberies, and rapes.
- His mother obtained counsel for Kent the following day
- She and her attorney conferred with the Social Service Director of the Juvenile Court and learned there was a possibility Kent would be waived to criminal court
- Kent’s attorney advised the Director of his intention to oppose the waiver
- He was detained in a Receiving Home for one week

No arraignment and no determination by a judicial officer of the probable cause for Kent’s arrest
Court failed to rule on any of Kent’s attorney’s motions
Also failed to confer with the attorney or parents

Kent was later found guilty of six counts of housebreaking
5-15 years per housebreaking counts → 30-90 year sentence

US Supreme Court on a vote of 5-4 reversed his conviction
- Held that Kent’s rights to due process and to the effective assistance of counsel had been violated when he was denied a formal hearing on the waiver and the attorney’s motions were ignored

Question 23

In re Gault (1967)

Answer 23

In a 7-2 vote, the US Supreme Court articulated the following rights for all juveniles:
The right to a notice of charges
The right to counsel
The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses
The right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination

Facts of the case:
- A 15 year old boy and his friend were taken into custody
- Gault was already on probation as the result of “being in the company of another who had stolen a wallen from a lady’s purse”
- A verbal complaint had been filed by the neighbor, Mrs. Cook, alleging that Gault had called here and made lewd and indecent remarks
- Gault was picked up - mother and father were at work
- Was held in a detention center

No factual basis was provided for the petition, and Gault’s parents were not provided with a copy of it in advance of the hearing

Cook was not at the hearing; testimony consisted of allegations

If an adult had made an obscene telephone call, he would have received a 50 dollar fine and no more than 60 days in jail
- However, Gault was facing nearly 6 years in juvenile prison for the same offense

A habeas corpus hearing was held and the judge was cross-examined regarding his actions

The Supreme Court reversed the Arizona court’s decision, holding Gault had the right to an attorney, the right to confront his accuser and cross-examine her, the right against self incrimination, and the right to have notice of the charges filed against him

Due process rights for juveniles were established:
Right to have notice of charges, including notification of parents and legal guardians
Right to counsel to represent interests
Right to confront accusers and to cross examine witnesses and accusers
Right to protection against self incrimination and the right to refuse to testify against oneself
Right to written record and transcript of court proceedings was left to individual states rather than the Court determining all youth have this right
Right to appellate review of finding of guilt also was left to individual states to decide

Question 24

habeas corpus

Answer 24

Writ meaning “produce the body”; used by prisons to challenge the nature and length of their confinement

Question 25

In re Winship (1970)

Answer 25

Established an important precedent in juvenile courts relating to the standard of proof used in establishing defendant guilt

Facts of the case:
- A 12 year old charged with larceny in NYC; purportedly entered a lock and stole $112 from a woman’s pocketbook
- Under Section 712 of the New York Family Court Act, a juvenile delinquent was defined as “a person over 7 and less than 16 years of age who does any act, which, if done by an adult, would constitute as a crime”
- The court judge in the case acknowledged that the proof might be insufficient to establish the guilt of Winship beyond a reasonable doubt
- Although, Winship was adjudicated as a delinquent and ordered to a training school for 18 months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his 18th birthday
- Appeals to NY courts were unsuccessful

The US Supreme Court heard the case and in a 6-3 vote, reversed the NY Family Court ruling

Question 26

youth and miranda

Answer 26

1. Demonstrated less comprehension than adults of their Miranda rights
2. Had less understanding of the wording of the Miranda warning
   A. Statement given to suspects by police officers advising them of their legal right to counsel, to refuse to answer questions, to avoid self-incrimination, and other privileges
3. Misunderstood their right to counsel
4. Did not understand their right to remain silent

Question 27

The primary reasons for supporting the death penalty:

Answer 27

1. Retribution
2. Deterrence
3. Just deserts

Question 28

The primary reasons for opposing the death penalty:

Answer 28

1. It is barbaric
2. May be applied in error to someone who is not actually guilty of a capital offense
3. It is nothing more than revenge
4. It is more costly than life imprisonment
5. It is applied arbitrarily
6. It does not deter others from committing murder
7. Most persons in the US are opposed to the death penalty

Question 29

Since the early 1980s, the US Supreme Court has ruled on questions regarding executions of juveniles

Evolving standards of decency

Answer 29

Used to assess the progress of a maturing society in determining what is cruel and unusual punishment in the context of the 8th Amendment

Question 30

Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988)

Answer 30

Thompson was convicted of murdering his former brother in law who was suspected of abusing Thompson’s sister

Thompson and three older companions left the mother’s house saying “we are going to kill charles”

Charles died by being beaten to death by thompson and his associates

The accomplices told the police shortly after the arrest that thompson shot the step brother twice in the head and cut his body in several places

15 years old at the time of the murder - transferred his case to criminal court

Convicted of murder and sentenced to death
- His penalty was reversed by the supreme court
- Drew a temporary line of 16 years as the minimum, for exacting the death penalty in capital cases

Question 31

Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)

Answer 31

Stanford was 17 years old when he and an accomplice repeatedly raped, sodomized, and eventually shot to death a 20 year old

Occurred during a robbery

Found him guilty of first degree murder and the judge sentenced him to death

Supreme court upheld his sentence

However, the governor of Kentucky commuted Stanford’s death sentence to life imprisonment without parole

Question 32

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

Answer 32

US Supreme Court revisited the issue of administering the death penalty to juveniles under the age of 18
Simmons, a 17 year old, told two youth that he wanted to commit burglary breaking and entering and then commit murder
Said they could get away with it because they were minors
Enter the home of Crook, robbed her, and murdered here by tying her up and throwing her in a river
Simmons gave a videotaped confession
Supreme court declared now that it is unconstitutional to execute juveniles under the age of 18
Because of this, juveniles who were convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death when they were under 18 at the time of their crimes were committed had their death sentences set aside
Now in prison for life without the possibility of parole

Question 33

Graham v. Florida (2010)

Answer 33

Court ruled that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for non homicide crime is not permitted under the 8th Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause
Two cases
1
Graham was 22 years old and service a life sentence for a burglary with assault and attempted armed robbery from when he was 16
Found guilty of more and more crimes, after denying the charges
Because Florida has no parole, Graham did not have an opportunity for release and was sentence to life without the possibility of parole
Ruled that life without a chance of parole for a juvenile in a non homicide offense was unconstitutional
2
Sullivan was 13 years old when burglarized an empty home and stole money and jewelry
Later came back with accomplices and assaulted and raped a 72 year
Tried as an adult and convicted and sentenced to life without parole
Was dismissed

Question 34

Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016)

Answer 34

14 states found that Miller was retroactive
Louisiana was one
Montgomery, a black youth (17), was tried and convicted for the murder of a white sheriff’s deputy
Received an automatic death sentence
Was tried and convicted again and was given life without parole
Rehearing was denied and the conviction and sentence become final
Filed a post conviction motion
Trial court denied the motion
Louisiana Supreme Court also denied his application
SCOTUS received it and ruled that juvenile offenders had the right to individualized sentences where the courts consider their characteristics
Found the Montgomery decision substantive and retroactive
means that someone can be punished for something that was legal when they did it, but is now illegal
States were able to remedy JLWOP sentences by proving parole eligibility to juvenile offenders

In reviewing state laws and practices on the juvenile death penalty, considering the scientific evidence on adolescent development, and taking into account foreign laws and practices on the execution of minors, SCOTUS concluded that the diminished culpability of youth and the evolving standards of decency mitigated against the death penalty

Question 35

Breed v. Jones (1975)

Answer 35

Raised the significant constitutional issue of double jeopardy
- Being tried for the same crime twice
5th amendment provides protection against that
Thus if someone is charged with a crime and is then acquitted, they cannot be tried again for that same offense
The US Supreme court concluded that after a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent for a particular offense, the youth cannot be tried again as an adult in criminal court for that same offense

Facts of the case:
A 17 year old was armed with a deadly weapon and allegedly committed robbery
Apprehended and a adjudicatory hearing was held
A petition was filed against Jones
After testimony was taken from Jones and witnesses, the juvenile court found that the allegations in the petition were true and sustained the petition
A disposition hearing was set
Jones was declared not able to the care treatment and training problem
Was then transferred to a criminal court, where he could be tried as an adult
Theere, he was convicted of robbery and committed for an indeterminate period
Supreme Court reversed this; targeted double jeopardy as:
1. Being adjudicated as delinquent on specific charges in a juvenile court t
2. Subsequently being tried and convicted of those same charges in criminal court