Video on Criminal Procedure

Confessions- Miranda Rule

Introduction:

1) For Any Confession to be Admissible, it MUST be Voluntary.

o This comes up in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

 Voluntary is determined by the “totality of circumstances” such as:

1. Suspects age (minor?)
2. Suspect physical condition (has not slept, education, injury, duration of
questioning)
o A conviction will not necessarily be over turned because of a
involuntary confession was admitted in trial

 Harmless Error Test: Is it in fact a harmless error that this evidence was admitted
into evidence?
o If this improper involuntary confession was admitted into evidence by
the prosecution, this evidence is can still result in a conviction if it is
in fact just a harmless error

2) Custodial Interrogation is a key phrase in Miranda Rights & has 2 separate

& distinct analysis:

1. Custody

o Freedom of Movement Test: Look at the totality of the circumstances and ask
whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would feel free to
leave or terminate. This is an objective standard.

o Inherently Coercive Pressures: Whether the situation presents the same

inherently coercive pressures as some time of station house questioning. If it
does then we will get to the custody threshold. It does not have to be custody
at the station, it could be in their own home or hospital bed.

 Probation interviews and routine traffic stops are not custodial and police do not have
to give you the Miranda warnings. This means anything you say can be used against
you.
 2. Interrogation

 Any conduct that the police knew or should have known are likely to elicit an
incriminating response from this suspect will be an interrogation.

I. Interrogation is more than just police asking questions:

 If police officer is rigorously questioning, we need to know what those

questions are. If a police officer is rigorously questioning someone does
not mean its interrogation. On an exam you must say which specific
question is the one that triggered the interrogation prong of Miranda
warnings (ex: “where did you hide the murder weapon?”).

II. Just because the suspect say something that is in fact incriminating does
not necessarily mean interrogation is taken place:

 When a police officer asks a type of question (Ex: “what are you
cooking!” “I’m cooking meth to pay myself through law school”) that
would most likely/usually not have a incriminating response.

 Spontaneous Statement is when the suspect or non-suspect blurts

something out. No Miranda Rules are required on a spontaneous
statement and it can be admissible against that client at trial

 If you find custody and the rule and also find interrogation and the rule by apply facts
to those rules than the next thing you need to analyse is the Miranda Waiver

3) What Constitutes a Proper Waiver/ How would the Courts know?:

 By waiving a Miranda Rule it must be knowing and voluntary.

 The courts determine waiver to be knowing and voluntary by the “totality of
circumstances test”

4) Right to Remain Silent:

1. Must unambiguously invoke your right to remain silent

 “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot
afford an attorney, one will be provided for you”

o The Supreme Court said that warnings do not have to be

verbatim(exactly the same). As long as the substance is conveyed then
its will be okay and valid. By saying “the right to remain quite” is
 okay because similar to the word silence and still conveying the
substance of the warnings

2. How to Invoke your Miranda Rules the Right to Remain silent?:

 When invoking the right to remain silent it must be unambiguous (“ I

do invoke my right to remain silent” & not just stay quite).

 When the right is invoked, police can still reinitiate questioning by:

I. Waiting a specific amount of time before coming back

and questioning the defendant. If they do come back for
questioning after that amount of time then;

II. The defendant must be re- Mirandized with the warnings

again and

III. The questioning must be limited to a crime that was not

the subject to the earlier questioning.

5) Right to Counsel:

1. Must Unambiguously Invoke Your Right to Counsel:

 The right to counsel must be stated unambiguously. Examples of ambiguous

requests to invoke a right to counsel.
o (“maybe I should get a law”, “It sounds like I’m a going to need a
lawyer, “This may be a good time for me to invoke my right to
counsel“, “You guys really think I did it, wow! I might have to call
an attorney”)

 If the accused does in fact invoke the right to counsel and his invocation is
unambiguously, then all questions must seize until the accused in given an
attorney or the accused actually initiates the further question and says
something incriminating it can be admissible.
o (“I want an attorney”, “give me my attorney now”)

2. What Happens When there is a Violation of the Miranda Rights:

 When suspect properly invokes right to counsel/silent and police ignore this,
keep questioning and obtain incriminating information
 Generally if there is evidence that’s obtained in violation of Miranda
(confessions, incriminating statements), that evidence with generally be
inadmissible into evidence because it was obtained in violation of the
Miranda Rules.
 3. Exclusionary Rules List Exceptions to the Violations of the Miranda
Rights:

I. This incriminating evidence/confession in violation of Miranda could still

come in during trial in order to impeach the creditability of defendants
trial testimony (but excluded in the prosecutions place in chief) if the
defendant does in fact takes the stand.

II. Public Safety Exceptions: Is when no Miranda Warnings are not in fact
required, due to the public safety involved (Example: when police: “I
need to quickly locate a gun or bomb”, “what did you throw out, was that
a gun?” “Was the gun loaded?” These are all public safety exceptions.

6) The 5th Amendment Right to Counsel v. The 6th Amendment Right to

Counsel

 Each of these rights have different rights attached to it, but recent Supreme Court
activities recently blurred the lines between the 5th and 6th Amendment Rights to
Counsel.

1. The 5th Amendment Right deals with Miranda

 This right runs the entire combative questioning of police custodial
interrogation.
 The suspect wants an attorney and the ONLY way to invoke his 5 th
Amendment Miranda Rights to get his attorney is to state it. This
means the suspect will get their attorney for all police questioning.
The courts have said that this 5th Amendment right gives you an
attorney for any questions that the police have.

2. The 6th Amendment Right deals with Getting an Attorney

 This right deals with an attorney to an offence specific offence
 It pertains getting an attorney for this particular offence.

3. The differences between the 5 th Amendment Right & the 6th

Amendment Right are that:

 The 5th Amendment Right: is not offence specific, it

pertains to all potential offences, all questions of criminal
activity and interrogations.

 The 6th Amendment Right: is when a suspect retain an

attorney or have one appointed that attorney is for the case
for in which the suspect has been wrest in charged. As the
6th Amendment right is offence specific, the police can
come back and talk to the suspect outside the presence of
his counsel if on a different case other than the burglary
case that you have a lawyer attained on.

 Example: Suspect has been wrest (attained/

depriced/obtain/forced/seized/violently) in
charge for burglary. Then if police want to
talk/question the suspect about the burglary
case. Now their attorney has to be there for the
burglary case as offense specific because they
have retained that counsel and that is their 6 th
Amendment attorney.