Week 3 Flashcards
important thing to remember
Don’t waive your miranda rights!!
Moving Into an Interrogation
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
Police Interrogation of Innocent Suspects
Interrogation Training Manual
- “Reid manual”
- Most used manual and interrogation training in the US
- Recommendations for interrogation techniques and nine step process
Q: Do your interrogation methods ever cause innocent people to confess?
A: No, because we don’t interrogate innocent people.
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
Miranda Rights
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
Custodian interrogation
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
After suspect has been read Miranda, he or she has the option to:
- Invoke Miranda rights (i.e., not talk, request attorney) OR
- Waive Miranda rights (i.e., talk to police without attorney)
IF suspect chooses to WAIVE Miranda and answer questions….
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
competency
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
Malingering
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
Juveniles and Miranda
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
Is a Parent Required to be Present?
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
When is a Youth in Custody?
JDB v. North Carolina (2011)
JDB v. North Carolina (2011)
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
Miranda Warnings standardization?
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)
Reading comprehension is one way to evaluate the complexity of Miranda warnings
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
Miranda Warnings: Waivers
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)
Role of Forensic Evaluator
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
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
The legal doctrine that permits the state of “act in place of the parents”
Litigation explosion
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
- 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.
- 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.
Hands-off doctrine
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
Kent v. United States (1966)
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
In re Gault (1967)
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
habeas corpus
Writ meaning “produce the body”; used by prisons to challenge the nature and length of their confinement
