What is the third degree?

What is it?  Using coercive tactics or torture to extract confessions from suspects  Also involved illegal detention and denying suspect their right to counsel What’s the inherent danger in using it?  Innocent people might confess to stop the coercion

 3 rd degree, along with corruption, was widespread in U.S. law enforcement Effects:  Reactions helped move policing from “political” era to the “professionalism” era  courts began to pay attention to this and exclude confessions elicited by the 3 rd degree. Brown v Mississippi (1936)  1 st time SC excluded a coerced confession, and required all confessions to be “voluntary”

What impact did these changes have on the 3 rd degree?  A “new 3 rd degree” developed: one in which psychological coercion and trickery was employed to gain a confession  Spano v New York  Important lesson: Gatehouse vs Courthouse trials (Escodedo case)

(1) Can police engage in custodial interrogations before a suspect is indicted? (2) Do suspects need a lawyer present to advise them in deciding whether or not to waive their right to remain silent?  Giddeon v Wainwright  Miranda v Arizona

Effects?  Not much: most ppl still waive their rights  Police have learned to do more interviewing than interrogating Question: can people voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive their rights?  Brewer v Williams case Irony: if suspects don’t waive their rights, nothing they say to police can be used against them. If they do waive their rights, then voluntariness standard applies, and police can use deceptive tactics (strange compromise)

Why is evidence based on deceptive police techniques accepted by law?  Protection of defendants’ rights isn’t the only value—crime control must also be considered  Sometimes good ends are seen as acceptable over the bad means used to get them.

Should the good end of convicting criminals outweigh the bad means of using deception or coercion in interrogations?  It depends: does one favor crime control or due process more?  Cayward case: doctoring evidence is a slippery slope  This same principle could be applied to police lying and deception.

Brown v Mississippi (1936) All confession must be voluntary Spano v New York (1959) “all the facts” standard for voluntary confessions Massiah v U.S. (1964) Gov’t cannot elicit statements from defendants once right to counsel is invoked. Escobedo v Illinois (1964) Criminal suspects have right to counsel during police interrogations Miranda v Arizona (1966) Suspects must be informed of their rights Only if rights are waived can police then question suspects (and use new 3 rd degree) Clear case of police brutality New 3 rd Degree