What are the three federal Constitutional challenges that can be brought to exclude a confession?
- 14th Amendment DPC
- 6th Amendment (Right to counsel)
- 5th Amendment (Miranda doctrine)
[NY also has a constitutional challenge: NY indelible right to counsel]
NY QUESTION
What additional right limiting confessions is available in the NY Constitution?
“Indelible right to counsel”
(Sixth Am. of NY State Constitution)
What is the standard for excluding a confession under 14A Due Process?
Involuntariness
i.,e., The confession is the product of police coercion that OVERBEARS the suspect’s will
What is the 6A right to counsel?
(Attaches when?)
(Applies when during prosecution?)
(Applies to which crimes?)
(When do statements violate 6A RTC?)
6th Am. states that people have a right to counsel.
- 6A RTC attaches when D is formally charged (not at arrest!)
- 6A RTC applies at all “critical stages” of a prosecution (incl. arraignment, probable cause hearings, police interrogation, and plea bargaining)
- 6A RTC is “OFFENSE SPECIFIC!” So it applies only to crimes with which D has been formally charged, i.e., there is no 6A protection for uncounseled interrogations w/r/t uncharged offenses.
- Incriminating statements obtained from D violate 6A IF:
(a) they were deliberately elicited AND
(b) D did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to have attorney present
NY QUESTION
What is the NY Indelible Right to Counsel? (greater protection than 6A)
- Attaches not only at formal charging, but also whenever there is significant judicial activity before charging, such that D may benefit from the presence of counsel
- If D taken into custody for questioning on a charge AND the police are aware that he is represented by counsel, they may not question him about ANYTHING without counsel present
- If D is represented by counsel, waiver of the NY6A indelible right MUST take place in the presence of the att’y
What are the four basic Miranda warnings?
- Right to remain SILENT
- Anything you say can and will be USED AGAINST YOU in a court of law
- The right to an ATTORNEY
- If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be APPOINTED for you
When are Miranda warnings necessary? (2 times)
- Suspect is in custody
- During suspect’s interrogation
(BUT SEE public safety exception)
What are the two parts of the test for determining whether someone is in custody under Miranda?
(Two-part totality of the circumstances test)
- A reasonable person would have felt that she was not at liberty to end the interrogation and leave AND
- The environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the station-house questioning inherent in Miranda
(N.B. While custody inquiry is objective, it should take account of suspect’s age, IF age is relevant AND officer knew or should have known of child’s age at the time of questioning)
What constitutes interrogation under Miranda?
Any conduct the police knew or should have known was likely to elicit an incriminating response
(N.B. Does not apply to spontaneous statements, since they’re not the product of interrogation)
What is the public safety exception to Miranda warnings?
Need for Miranda suspended if prompted by immediate concern for public safety.
(i. e., In cases where there is an immediate concern for public safety, Miranda warnings are NOT needed, and incriminating statements ARE admissible)
(e. g., Questioning Dzokar Tsarnaev after the Boston marathon bombing)
When is evidence from custodial interrogations admissible?
Unless public safety applies, admissible if:
- Officer RECITED EXACTLY the core Miranda rights to the suspect; AND
- Officer thereafter obtained a valid waiver of suspect’s Miranda rights to silence and counsel
What are the two requirements for a valid waiver of Miranda rights?
Suspect’s waiver must be:
- Knowing and intelligent (suspect understands nature of rights AND the consequences of abandoning them); AND
- Voluntary (not product of police coercion)
NY QUESTION
What is the parent/child rule w/r/t Miranda rights waivers in NY?
If the police use deception or concealment to keep a parent away from a child who is being interrogated, child’s waiver may be deemed invalid
What constitutes an implied waiver of Miranda rights?
Suspect may impliedly waive his Miranda rights by a “course of conduct” that indicates his desire to speak with police interrogators.
(i.e., If the suspect understood his Miranda rights, he waives his right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police)
What is the evidentiary standard for waivers of Miranda rights?
Prosecution must prove a valid waiver by a POE
How must the right to remain silent be invoked?
Suspect must UNAMBIGUOUSLY invoke (i.e., use words)
What are the obligations on police after the right to remain silent has been invoked?
Officers must “scrupulously honor” suspect’s invocation:
- No badgering,
- Must wait significant period of time before trying to reinitiate questioning, and
- Must first obtain a valid Miranda waiver
How must the 5A (i.e., Miranda) right to counsel be invoked?
Suspect’s request for counsel must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer in same situation would understand it to be a request
What is the scope of the 5A right to counsel? (3)
- Once invoked, all interrogation must cease UNLESS initiated by suspect
- Unlike 6th Am RTC, Miranda/5th Am RTC is NOT offense specific (i.e., interrogation outside presence of counsel is prohibited as to all topics)
- Request expires 14 days after suspect is released from custody (so a suspect’s waiver after this time is valid if it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
What are the differences between the 5A and 6A right to counsel?
- 5A is NOT offense specific; 6A is
- 5A attaches when in custody; 6A attaches when charged with an offense
What are the rules on evidentiary exclusions in light of Miranda violations?
- Incriminating statements gained via Miranda violations are inadmissible in case in chief, but can be used to impeach D on cross
- Failure to give Miranda warnings does NOT require suppression of the physical fruits of incriminating statements IF the statements were voluntary (e.g., Bateman confesses to killing his boss and tells the officer where the murder weapon is, but the interrogation is found to violate Miranda. Bateman’s statements can be suppressed, but not the weapon!)
- If a statement is inadmissible due to Miranda, subsequent statements made AFTER waiver ARE admissible, PROVIDED that the initial statements were not obtained through inherently coercive police tactics or methods offensive to due process
What is the standard for reviewing verdicts obtained with inadmissible evidence?
(i.e., evidence obtained in violation of Miranda/5th Am OR physical evidence improperly admitted under 4th Am.)
Verdicts need not be overturned if the error was harmless (because D would have been convicted without tainted evidence)
(Prosecution has the buden of proving harmless error BARD)
