Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES plus 4TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RULES.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES plus 4TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RULES."— Presentation transcript:

1 Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES plus 4TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RULES Devallis Rutledge (213)

2 4 exclusionary rules for confession evidence
4th Amendment—Wong Sun 5th Amendment—Miranda 6th Amendment—Massiah 14th Amendment—Brown

3 Miranda v. arizona Miranda compliance is a prerequisite to the admissibility of a statement obtained through custodial police interrogation.

4 Mcneil v. wisconsin "We have in fact never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than custodial interrogation."

5 Kirby v. illinois Miranda was based exclusively on the Fifth Amendment.

6 Us v. mandujano Miranda secures a Fifth Amendment privilege. The Sixth Amendment is not implicated by Miranda.

7 Moran v. burbine “The holding of Miranda rested exclusively on the Fifth Amendment.”

8 The United States Supreme Court articulated the Miranda admonitions in 1966 as a prophylactic measure to protect the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of those interrogated by agents of the government." The United States Supreme Court articulated the Miranda admonitions in 1966 as a prophylactic measure to protect the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of those interrogated by agents of the government." People v. castile “The United States Supreme Court articulated the Miranda admonitions in 1966 as a prophylactic measure to protect the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of those interrogated by agents of the government.”

9 people v. riva “The question is whether the defendant waived his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as delineated in Miranda.”

10 vasquez-trujillo v. gonzales
“Those Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights outlined in Miranda….”

11 California v. beheler “Custody” means… “…formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.”

12 “Not free to leave?” The “not-free-to-leave” test… “…identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Miranda custody.” --Howes v. Fields

13 Implied waiver “…after giving a Miranda warning, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his or her Miranda rights.” --Berghuis v. Thompkins

14 Michigan v. tucker “…the Miranda rules were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution.”

15 Moran v. burbine Miranda’s objective… “…is not to mold police conduct for its own sake.”

16 “The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct.”
Us v. patane “The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct.”

17 Chavez v. martinez “Violations of judicially crafted prophylactic rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any person.”

18 People v. Nguyen Moran v. Burbine
“Miranda imposed an affirmative duty on interrogating officers to cease questioning once a suspect invokes the right to counsel.’ “Nothing in the Constitution vests in us the authority to mandate a code of behavior for state officers.”

19 “The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct.”
People v. Nguyen Moran v. Burbine “It is indeed misconduct to interrogate a suspect in custody who has invoked his right to counsel.” “The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct.”

20 People v. Nguyen US v. Patane “Nothing in Peavey was meant to condone deliberately improper interrogation tactics.” “It is not for this court to impose its preferred police practices on law enforcement officials.”

21 People v. Nguyen US v. Patane “A statement obtained in violation of Miranda is a statement obtained illegally.” “Police do not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights (or the Miranda rule)” by asking questions.

22 US Const., Art. Vi, CLAUSE 2: “This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby.”

23 US v. washington “Far from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable.”

24 Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES fifth AMENDMENT issues plus 4th, 6th and 14th amendment rules Devallis Rutledge (213)


Download ppt "Devallis Rutledge (213) 257-2937 drutledge@da.lacounty.gov ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES plus 4TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RULES."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google