POLI 4000 FINAL REVIEW

.docx
Coerced Confessions Brown v. Mississippi (1936) Precedent: murder confessions extracted from a suspect by use of police violence are inadmissible in court Spano v. New York (1959) Precedent: psychological coercion used to elicit criminal confessions are inadmissible in court Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Precedent: When an investigation is no longer "general inquiry" into an unsolved crime and a suspect is in police custody an opportunity to consult with an attorney must be provided o Changed the view of when right to counsel begins , it used to begin after formal indictment, this ruling moved it to the accusatory stage Decision : Escobedo's 6 th Amendment right to counsel was violated and therefore was not advised to remain silent violating his 5 th Amendment rights o Although Escobedo had not been indicted at the time of interrogation it was clear the investigation had transitioned from "an unsolved crime" to "get him to confess his guilt " o Police would've behaved differently with an attorney present, and Escobedo would be advised to remain silent Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Established: procedures necessary to assure that the individual is accorded his 5 th Amendment right during custodial police interrogation- Suspects in custodial interrogations must be read their Marinda rights : "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you." Decision: the pressures and isolation of interrogation require proper safeguards for those in custody; Miranda's statements are inadmissible in court Precedent: Suspects in custodial interrogations must be read their Miranda Rights Berkmer v. McCarty (1984) Precedent: Miranda is evoked once the police determine that an individual will not be able to leave the scene on his own accord o Traffic stops do not require Marinda doctrine- a traffic stop is not 'in custody' Decision: a traffic stop does not require Marinda doctrine because the individual is not in custody
o Creating an exception for misdemeanor traffic offenses would undermine Marinda and unnecessarily complicate the law Rhode Island v. Innes (1980) Precedent: a statement or confession as a result of a suspect joining a police conversation that was not directed at the suspect is admissible in court o Custody is necessary for interrogation to occur, but statements made in custody are not always a result of interrogation o Interrogation must be initiated by an officer Decision: Innis' Marinda rights were not violated Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) Decision : the state failed to meet its burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the confession to Anthony Sarivola was harmless error- the outcome would be different without the confession o Fulminante's conviction is vacated, and he is ordered to stand trial again without the admission of his confession Precedent: A. If a favor is traded for a confession it is qualified as coercion (e.g. protection in prison) B. In order to determine if that confession is admissible in trial it must undergo the harmless error analysis Expanded: Chapman v. California ; Harmless error are constitutional errors that have no significant impact on the outcome of a trial - (1) total deprivation of right to counsel (2) judges who fail impartiality, (3) coerced confessions [following Arizona v. Fulminate; depending on its relevance] can never be categorized as harmless error Dickerson v. United States (2000) Decision: "Congress may not supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the constitution (see e.g. City of Boerne v. Flores)" o Congress undermined Miranda by enacting 18 USC Section 3501- they can't do that Missouri v. Seibert (2004) Precedent: in order for interrogation statement to be admissible Miranda warnings must be given Decision : The practice of Rolla, MO police of interrogating someone unawarned, waiting for the opportune moment and then warning them aims to threaten the effectiveness of Marinda (i.e they can't interrogate someone before Miranda is given and then ask them to repeat themselves after Miranda is given)
o The suspect's statement is not admissible in court- if rights were understood at the outset, it is unlikely that pre-warning confession would have been made
Page1of 13
Uploaded by CountRaccoon3472 on coursehero.com