Confessions overview
a. Overview: 3 federal const challenges that can be brought to exclude a confession
i. 14th amd—DP clause
ii. 6th amd—right to counsel
iii. 5th amd—Miranda doctrine
Exclusions of confessions under DP of 14th amdt
i. Standard: involuntariness. Meaning confession is product of police coercion that overbears the suspect’s will
1. For ex: If a suspect decompensates mentally and becomes psychotic at time of confession.
a. Not a violation of DP to admit confession, because the confession was voluntary. The suspect will wasn’t overborne by police coercion.
b. Coercion here was from god
ii. NOT involuntary merely if product of mental illness.
iii. if an involuntary confession is admitted, harmless error test applies, i.e. conviction need not be overturned if there is other overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Right to counsel under 6th amdt
i. Express const guarantee
ii. Attaches when the ∆ is formally charged, NOT upon arrest
iii. Applies at all critical stages of the prosecution that takes place after filing of formal charges, incl arraignment prob cause hearings, interrogation and plea bargaining
iv. Right is offense specific. Applies only crimes with which a ∆ is formally charged. Doesn’t provide protection for other uncharged crim activity
v. Incriminating statements obtained from ∆ by cops about charged offenses violate the 6th amd if those statements are deliberately elicited AND the ∆ didn’t knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive right to have atty present.
Fifth amendment and Miranda
i. Implied rights: Miranda rights are implied rights grounded in the self incrimination clause of the 5th amdt
ii. Four core warnings
1. Right to remain silent
2. anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
3. right to attorney
4. if you cannot afford one, one will be appointd for you
Big picture miranda rights
unless you have public safety, must get Miranda rights. 3 options
- waive Miranda
- remain silent
- request counsel
Valid miranda waiver
1) knowing and intelligent 2) voluntary
a. “knowing and intelligent.” suspect must understand
i. the nature of the rights AND
ii. the consequences of abandoning them
b. Voluntary: voluntary if not the product of police coercion.
i. always means the same thing for each amdt:not product of police coercion
- Executing the waiver: waiver need not be express, instead it may be implied by a course of conduct that indicates the desire o speak with cops
a. if a suspect has received and understood his Miranda rights, he waives his right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police. - BOP: The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid waiver of a suspects Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Waiver valid even if lawyer said call me if she’s questioned.
a. and suspect voluntarily waives rights.
b. as long as client understands. “suspects are not entitled to a flow of info to calibrate their self interest”
Invoking miranda rights
- invoking right to remain silent
a. suspects must unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent
b. Once the suspects invoke the right, cops must scrupulously the invocation. This means that at the least, PO cannot badger suspect into talking, POs must wait a significant period of time before reinitiating questioning and must first obtain a valid Miranda waiver.
i. can reinitiate questioning if - sever hours pass
- fresh set of Miranda warnings, AND
- questioning is related to a crime that was not the subject of the first set of questions
Invoking right to counsel
a. request for counsel must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer in the same situation would understand the statement to be a request for counsel.
- not offense-specific like the 6th amdt. Therefore, interrogation following a request for counsel under Miranda is prohibited as to ALL topics, outside the presence of a suspects atty,
unless convo is initiated by suspect
d. The request for counsel expires 14 days after a suspect is released from custody, a waiver of the Miranda right to counsel obtained after this period is valid, provided it is knowing, intelligent and voluntary
e. basically, when suspect invokes right to counsel, police cant question him about ANYTHING. and that right not to be questioned lasts 14 days after leaving. 2 ways out for cops:
i. question in presence of lawyer
ii. wait for suspect to initiate.
f. Any questioning AFTER FORMAL CHARGES must be in presence of ∆ counsel, unless ∆ waived that right.
Limits on evidentiary exclusion as applied to miranda violations
- incriminating statements obtained in violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights are inadmissible in the prosecutors case in chief but may be used to impeach the ∆’s testimony on cross-x
a. same rule as 4th
miranda violations do not apply to fruit of the poisonous tree, so long as they are voluntary.
- failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require the suppression of the physical fruits of incriminating statements, provided the statements are voluntary
a. even if questioning done in violation of Miranda, and tells PO about where weapon is stashed, that weapon can be introduced as evidence.
cosp get a second bite at the apple
- If a statement is inadmissible due to a Miranda violation,, subsequent incriminating statements made after obtaining a Miranda waiver are admissible, provided the initial, non-mirandized statement was not obtained through the use of inherently coercive police tactics or methods, offensive to DP.
a. i.e. if cops make a Miranda mistake, they can get a second bite
miranda and harmless error test
- If testimonial evidence that should have been excluded as a violation of Miranda was improperly admitted at trial, court MAY have to vacate guilty verdict
a. Will stand if govt can prove beyond reasonable doubt that error was harmless bc ∆ would have been convicted despite the tainted evidence.
b. This also applies to physical evidence improperly admitted under 4th amd.
When do you have to give a miranda warning?
iii. Must give miranda warnings if suspect is 1) is in custody and 2) there is an interrogation
1. Custody: 2 part totality of the circumstances test.
a. Part 1: RP wouldn’t have felt she was at liberty to end the interrogation and leave. AND
b. Part 2: environment presents the same inherently coercive pressure as station house questioning in issue in Miranda
c. While whether there is custody is objective, it does consider juvenile suspect’s age, where age is relevant and when officer knw or should have known child’s age. Like a 10 y/o might feel like they were in custody bc used to answering POs.
- Interrogation: Miranda defines interrogation the police knew or should have know was likely to elicit an incriminating response
a. Rmbermer: Miranda doesn’t apply to incriminating statements made spontaneously, bc not product of interrogation
b. PO doesn’t have to tell ∆ the nature of the charges. - Exs:
a. If the interrogation is not in an official setting, like lying in your own bed, can stil count as in custody if same pressure as station house and suspect thinks he can’t leave.
b. Cop posing as inmate in jail cell with ∆, officer befriends ∆. ∆ incriminates himself.
i. not a violation of Miranda, bc ∆ thought he was talking to a frien, the essential ingredients of the Miranda doctrine—an atmosphere of police domination and coercion were absent
- Public safety exception: IF custodial interrogation is prompted by an immediate concern for public safey, Miranda warnings are unnecessary and any incriminating statements are admissible against the suspect
a. for ex you can question the boston marathon bombing suspects without giving Miranda and you can use statements against htme in court.
iv. Respecting Miranda: Unless public safety exception applies, a suspect’s incriminating testimonial responses obtained through custodial interrogation are admissible, provided an officer does two things:
1. reasonably conveys to the suspect his or her core Miranda rights AND
2. thereafter obtains a valid waiver of a suspects Miranda rights to silence and counsel
