Crim Pro Slides

8/3/2019 Crim Pro Slides

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim-pro-slides 1/24

The Miranda Warnings

(1) Right to remain silent

(2) Anything you say can and will be used against you(3) Right to consult with an attorney and have an

attorney present during questioning

(4) That if you cannot afford one, a lawyer will beappointed

What is the key concept that Miranda seeks toaddress?



What was the Court’s Reasoning?

• Custodial interrogation produces inherent

compulsion.• “Procedural safeguards” deemed adequate to

dispel this inherent compulsion.

•When the safeguards are used, statements are notcompelled and their use does not conflict with the

5th Amendment.

•

Later Opinions: Warnings are prophylactic innature—not themselves constitutionally compelled.

How have these Rules been explained in

the cases?



Threshold Questions

What are the two initial questions in

any Miranda analysis:

Was the suspect in custody?

Was the suspect interrogated?



Custody

Formal arrest; OR Its functional equivalent?

How does caselaw explain this rule?

When a reasonable person in the suspect’s

position would conclude that his “freedom of

action is curtailed to a degree associated with

formal arrest”

Significant deprivation of personal

freedom

Police dominated atmosphere



Express questioning or itsfunctional equivalent

Words or actions reasonably likely to

elicit an incriminating response from the suspect .

What is interrogation?

• Relevant factors include police

intent & knowledge of suspect’svulnerability.

• State agent known as such to

suspect.



First Miranda Safeguard: Adequate

Warnings

Hypo: Mel arrested for child abuse. Officers tell

him “right not to talk and right to an attorney.”

Mel says “nothing to hide and certainly don’t

need lawyer b/c I was well within my rights to

beat my own kid as much as I please. Do the

officer’s warnings meet Miranda?

Is Mel’s statement inadmissible under Miranda?



Question First/Warn Later: Does an initial

failure to inform a suspect of his rights bar

subsequent admissions after he has been fullyadvised?

Rule Explanation:* Elstad (1985)

* Must look at all the factual circumstances

* Issue is voluntariness



Missouri v. Siebert (2004)

Midstream recitation of warnings: Could the

warnings could reasonably convey that suspect could

choose to stop talking even if they had talked earlier?

In this case, no. Court must look at the facts.

* Elstad was a good faith failure to warn.

* This was police protocol

* Overlapping content of first/second statements

* Timing* Continuity of police personnel



Invocation of Right to Remain Silent

Must invoke right to remain silent

–Invocation must be clear and explicit

–What is the rationale behind this

requirement?--



Once invoke right to remain silent,

custodial interrogation must cease

unless:

Officers scrupulously honor suspect’s

right to cut off questioning; AND

Obtains a waiver



Invocation of Right To Counsel

• Clear & unambiguous request for counsel

such that

• a reasonable police officer in the

circumstances would understand the

statement to be a request for an attorney.



Second run at question. . . when suspect

asks for a lawyer, interrogation mustcease and may continue ONLY if . . .

1) Attorney is present; OR

2) Suspect initiates..



Is the Edwards protection eternal?

How long does Edwards’ protection last?

•

Suspect was questioned while in prison for anothercrime. He invoked his right to counsel and

interview was terminated. Suspect was released

back into general prison population.

• Three years later, another detective reopened the

investigation and attempted to interrogate suspect,

who was still incarcerated.

• Suspect waived his Miranda rights and made

incriminating statements.

• Is statement admissible?



Maryland v. Shatzer (June 2010):

• Edwards is not eternal.

• The suspect experienced a break in his

Miranda custody lasting more than 2 weeks.

• “When a suspect has been released from

pretrial custody and has returned to his

normal life for some time before the later

attempted interrogation, there is little reason

to think that his change of heart regarding

interrogation without counsel is coerced.”



Understand the different

standards for:

Invoking the Right to Remain Silent

compared to Invoking the Right to

Counsel and how each right is

protected and waived .



Second Miranda Safeguard:

A Knowing & Voluntary Waiver

Once adequate warnings are given, the

government must secure a Knowing &

Voluntary Waiver.• Government’s burden

(1) Is there a waiver?

–Express Waiver not required. See Berghuis.

–May be implied from “course of conduct

indicating waiver”



(2) Was the Waiver Knowing & Intelligent?

• Must understand the nature of rights being

abandoned & consequences of abandoning .• Government only has to show that suspect

aware of the matters in the warnings.

• Knowledge” component requires capacity to

understand. Look at circumstances:

Evidence to show suspect mentallychallenged?

Does not understand English?



(3) Was the Waiver Voluntary?

• Free and deliberate choice rather than

intimidation, coercion or deception• First MUST show “official coercion”

• If sufficient official coercion, voluntariness

determined by totality of relevant

circumstances

• Note: The voluntariness analysis for waiver

is the same as the Due Process Test for

determining the voluntariness of

confessions—was the suspect’s will broken?



• In a voluntariness analysis, what factors

might be relevant to the totality of the

circumstances? –Circumstances of interrogation including

length of time

–Physical harm or threats of physical harm

–Promises of leniency on charging or

sentencing

–Extreme deception

–Exploiting suspect’s particular

vulnerabilities



Public Safety Exception

This is the ONLY exception to restrictions

Miranda imposes on custodial interrogations

(NY v. Quarles).

What factors are considered?1. Objective Reasonable Officer Standard

2. Nature and Magnitude of Public Safety

3. Immediacy of Threat



Actual compulsion = NO public safety

exception because 5th Amendment would bar

the use of the statement.

Quarles concerned the failure to warn before

custodial interrogation—it permits officers to

dispense with requirements of warnings and waiver.

Application: It is unclear whether Public Safety

can justify the failure to abide by otherrequirements, such as the demand that waiver be

voluntary.

S l l d O li S i /



Sample Rule-Based Outline Section w/ RE

Miranda Safeguards -- Invocation of Right to Counsel:

[triggers different procedural safeguards than invocation of

right to remain silent]

1. Invoking Right to Counsel

• Clear and unambiguous request for counsel such that• reasonable police officer in the circumstances would

understand the statement to be a request for an att’y.

Davis v. US (1994)

• Ambiguous assertion ineffective/no barriers to further I.

• Request for assistance of someone other than lawyer

has no effect.

O I k I i S ( i



2. Once Invoke, Interrogation Stops (cannot try again

to get waiver) Unless:

1. Att’y present; OR

Actual Presence Req’d—consulting with counsel does not

satisfy: Minnick v. MI (1990) Interpreted Edwards v. Az

(1981) broadly and held that merely consulting with

counsel not sufficient. Counsel must be present. 2. Suspect initiates further communications, exchanges,

or conversations with the police: Must demonstrate

“willingness and desire for a generalized discussion of

investigation.” OR

If police initiate interrogation, any statements from custodial

interrogation are INADMISSIBLE. Even if suspect gives waiver, it

is presumed invalid.

Change in officers or topic NOT RELEVANT.

B k i d “ i ” i



3. Break-in-custody = can “try again” to get waiver.

Md v Shatzer (June 2010) Interrogated in prison—Q

stopped after suspect invoked M right to counsel.

Released into general population. Q again 3 years

later by another detective. Suspect then waived M

and made incriminating statements. Court held

admissible.• Edwards Protection not eternal. Break in custody of

sufficient duration to dissipate coercive effects: 2

weeks is sufficient break.• Distinguished Minnick: Suspect didn’t regain sense

of control/normalcy after initially taken into custody

for crime under investigation.

• Waiver must still be knowing & voluntary

Documents

Crim Pro Slides