Chapter Eleven – Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona Rolando V. del Carmen

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Before Miranda: Only Voluntary Confessions Admissible – Voluntary Confessions

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  U.S. Supreme Court Cases Before Miranda v. Arizona – Coercion and Brutality: Confession not Valid Brown v. Mississippi (1936) – Coercion: Confession not Valid Chambers v. Florida (1940) – Deception: Confession not Valid Spano v. New York (1959)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  U.S. Supreme Court Cases Before Miranda v. Arizona – Confession not Voluntary: Not Valid Rogers v. Richmond (1951) – Suspect Denied Counsel at the Police Station: Confession not Valid Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  After Miranda – The Three-Question Test for Admissibility – Were the Miranda warnings given? – If they were given, was there a waiver? – It there was a waiver, was it intelligent and voluntary? – Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona – The Case The Facts The Legal Issue The Court’s Decision Case Significance

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona – The Miranda warnings (all together now) You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to the presence of an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to questioning. Fifth addition – not required – You have the right to terminate this interview at any time.

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Miranda Warnings: Required by the Constitution, Not Just by Judges – United States v. Dickerson (4 th Circuit 1999) – Dickerson v. United States (2000)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Miranda Warnings: Must be Given for All Offenses Except Routine Traffic Stops – Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) The rule The only exception – Pennsylvania v. Bruder (1988)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Distinguishing the Miranda Warnings from the Right to Counsel – Massiah v. United States (1964) – United States v. Henry (1980) – Fellers v. United States (2004)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Differences Between Miranda Rules and Right to Counsel Miranda RulesRight to Counsel Fifth AmendmentSixth Amendment Custodial InterrogationMany Proceedings PoliceSuspect or Judge Given in absence of lawyerLawyer must be present Must be given for everyOnce given is violated custodial interrogation exceptonly if interrogation for traffic offenses deals with same offense

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Miranda Rights: May only Be Waived Knowingly and Intelligently – Intelligent – Voluntary – Mincey v. Arizona (1978)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Miranda Rights: May only Be Waived Knowingly and Intelligently – “Intelligent and Voluntary” must be proved by prosecution – Signed waiver not required North Carolina v. Butler (1979) – Express waiver not required

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Miranda Rights: May only Be Waived Knowingly and Intelligently – The Validity of a Presumption of Waiver from Silence after the Warnings Teague v. Louisiana (1980) – The Validity of a Waiver “Following the Advice of God” Colorado v. Connelly (1986)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Miranda Rights: May only Be Waived Knowingly and Intelligently – The Validity of a Waiver After a Prolonged Interruption Before Questioning – The Validity of a Waiver that the Suspect has Withdrawn – A Waiver?: When the Suspect Requests Someone other than a Lawyer Fare v. Michael C. (1979)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Custodial Interrogation: When the Miranda Warnings Must Always be Given – Custody California v. Beheler (1983) – Suspect under arrest – Suspect not under arrest but deprived of freedom

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Custodial Interrogation: When the Miranda Warnings Must Always be Given – Interrogation When the police ask questions that tend to incriminate

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Custodial Interrogation: When the Miranda Warnings Must Always be Given – Interrogation When the police create the functional equivalent of interrogation – Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Custodial Interrogation: When the Miranda Warnings Must Always be Given –Interrogation When police appeal to the defendant’s religious interests –Brewer v. Williams (1977) When two officers converse between themselves When a conversation between a suspect and his wife is recorded by an officer –Arizona v. Mauro (1987)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Other Situations and Decisions on When Miranda Warnings are Required – Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were Required Further Questioning about the Same Offense After a Suspect Asks for a Lawyer – Edwards v. Arizona (1981) – Minnick v. Mississippi (1991)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Other Situations and Decisions on When Miranda Warnings are Required –Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were Required Further Questioning about an Unrelated Offense After a Suspect Asks for a Lawyer –Arizona v. Roberson (1988) Questioning about a Second Offense When the Suspect Has a Lawyer for a Different but Related Offense –Texas v. Cobb (2001)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Other Situations and Decisions on When Miranda Warnings are Required – Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were Required Further Questioning about an Unrelated Offense Questioning a Defendant without a Lawyer After an Indictment Suspect Asking for a Lawyer during the Reading of Miranda Warnings – Smith v. Illinois (1984)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Other Situations and Decisions on When Miranda Warnings are Required – Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were Required Interrogation During Detention when Detention is the Functional Equivalent of Arrest – Knapp v. Texas (2003) Giving the Miranda Warnings Only After the Police Obtain an Unwarned Confession – Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying the Miranda Warnings – Questioning on an Unrelated Offense After the Suspect Indicates a Wish to Remain Silent Michigan v. Mosley (1975) – After a Knowing and Voluntary Waiver, Questioning until the Suspect Clearly Requests a Lawyer Davis v. United States (1994)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying the Miranda Warnings – Using a Voluntary, but Inadmissible Statement to Impeach a Defendant’s Credibility Harris v. New York (1971) – Using an Inadmissible Statement to Obtain Collateral Derivative Evidence Michigan v. Tucker (1974)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying the Miranda Warnings – Interrogating without Informing the Suspect of All Crimes Colorado v. Spring (1987) – Oral Confessions Admissible Connecticut v. Barrett (1987)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying the Miranda Warnings – Confession Admissible despite Failure to Inform the Suspect of a Retained Attorney Moran v. Burbine (1986) – The Physical Fruits of an Unwarned but Voluntary Statements United States v. Patane (2004)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Situations in Which the Miranda Warnings Are Not Needed – When the Officer Does Not Ask Any Questions – During General On-the-Scene Questioning – When the Statement is Volunteered – When Asking the Suspect Routine Identification Questions Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Situations in Which the Miranda Warnings Are Not Needed – When Questioning Witnesses who are not Suspects – In Stop and Frisk Cases – During Lineups, Showups and Photographic Identifications – When the Statement is Made to a Private Person, not a Law Enforcement Officer

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  Situations in Which the Miranda Warnings Are Not Needed – When a Suspect Testifies Before a Grand Jury United States v. Manujano (1976) – When There is a Threat to Public Safety New York v. Quarles (1984) – When an Undercover Officer Poses as an Inmate and Asks Questions Illinois v. Perkin (1990)

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona  The Harmless Error Rule and Miranda Cases on Appeal – Arizona v. Fulminante (1991)