#10989 - Interrogations And Confessions - Criminal Procedure: Investigations

Interrogations and Confessions

1. Unique problems court attempts to address/balance

   1. Hard to know what goes inside of room when police interrogate a suspect

   2. Is reliance on interrogations and confessions a good thing or a band thing?

      1. Police argue it is the most effective tool they have

      2. Some justices think evidence obtained in this manner is like an inquisition and is unreliable

   3. Focus now

      1. Court distinguished between confessions in violation of Miranda and confessions that are truly involuntary

      2. Miranda is a procedural safeguard to help ensure that confessions are voluntary

2. Evolution of the law

   1. DPC of the 5th and 14th amen

      1. Involuntary statements—need police misconduct to find statement involuntary under DPC

         1. Compulsion by torture to confess violates DPC

            1. Brown v Mississippi: black men are tortured until they confess to the crime, only evidence against them was the confession

         2. When defendant’s will has been overborne it violates DPC

            1. Totality of the circumstances to determine if statement was voluntary

               1. Spano v New York: Boxer took Spano’s money and Spano then shot boxer in a candy store; asked for atty several times and was denied, manipulated into confessing by friend (would this be the same post Miranda)

            2. BUT defendant’s will overbore w/o police misconduct is not enough

               1. Colorado v Connelly: schizophrenic who thinks voice of god commanded him to confess to murder

   2. Right to counsel—6th amen and DPC of 14th amen

      1. Once the defendant has been indicted can’t deliberately elicit information about THAT charge w/o attorney present

         1. Violation only occurs when police or informant take some action beyond merely listening

            1. Massiah: Massiah released on bail and co-defendant wore a wire and elicited incriminating statements out of him; violates 6th amen right to counsel; like interrogating him without him knowing

            2. Kulhman v Wilson: cellmate only listened and at no time asked any questions—that is okay

         2. Escobedo: limited to its facts; when interrogation has begun to focus on a particular suspect and deny suspect right to see his counsel, violate 6th amen right to counsel

   3. 5th amen right against compulsory self incrimination

      1. Miranda:

         1. Gives criminal defendant right to be informed of 4 things

            1. Right to remain silent

            2. If you decide to give up that right, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law

            3. Right to an attorney

            4. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed

         2. Court pulls back on Escobedo

         3. Custodial interrogations are inherently coercive

            1. Worried about false confessions

            2. Threatens individual liberty and human dignity

         4. Court directs attention to 5th amen instead of 6th amen

         5. Now Focus is on custodial interrogation

         6. Court wanted a clear rule

      2. Congress can’t overrule Miranda (Dickerson v United States)

         1. Police are okay with Miranda because it is easy to implement and they know what they have to say to suspects

3. Scope of Miranda

   1. Custody=arrest

      1. Whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have believed himself to be under formal arrest or his freedom restrained to a degree associated with arrest (objective test)

         1. Seizure is not custody

            1. McCarty: traffic stop is not custody; traffic stop seizure is not as coercive

         2. Terry stops are not custody

         3. Stationhouse is not determinative alone, only a factor to consider

            1. Oregon v Mathiason: police left D a card to all him, he voluntarily came to stationhouse to give his statement, was told he was not under arrest—not custody

         4. Can be in custody in your home

         5. Age is a factor to be considered

            1. JDB: Would a reasonable 14 year old have felt himself to be under arrest?

            2. Rationale: children lack capacity to exercise mature judgment and incomplete ability to understand world around them

         6. Imprisonment alone is not custody

            1. Howes: prisoner interrogated for 5-7 hours in room and was told he was free to leave

   2. Interrogation

      1. Express questioning or its functional equivalent

      2. Saying something or doing something that the police should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from that suspect; other than those normally attendant to arrest (You are under arrest)

         1. Innis: cops had convo between themselves about safety concerns of a gun in school zone, D then told them where the gun was—not an interrogation

         2. Perkins: Miranda does not apply when the suspect does not know he is speaking with a law enforcement officer; overt questioning of an incarcerated suspect does not have to be conducted pursuant to Miranda unless questioning is about what the suspect is incarcerated for; inherent pressure of custody does not apply when he doesn’t know he is dealing with his captors

   3. Public safety exception to Miranda

      1. Quarles: Need of answers to a question in a situation posing a threat to public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic Miranda rule

      2. Rationale:

         1. Cost of not having this info is greater than suspect losing right against self incrimination

      3. BUT this exception does not apply if the statements are actually coerced

4. Waiver of Miranda

   1. Waiver can be implied from all the circumstances (Butler)

      1. Need warnings given + some evidence that defendant understood the warning to imply a waiver

         1. Berghuis v Thompkins: D given form and asked to sign it , he refused, police continued questioning and then he confessed after 2 hours and 45 min; Miranda’s main protection lies in advising D of rights

   2. After arraignment, police can go to a suspect and if he waives his right to counsel, police can interrogate him

      1. Montejo: Suspect appointed PD at arraignment and he was interrogated and wrote an apology letter to victim’s widow

   3. Don’t have to fully inform suspect in order for waiver to be valid

      1. Burbine: sister got PD for D and police never told D, cop state of mind is irrelevant

5. Invocation of Miranda rights

   1. Need to make a clear and unambiguous statement in order to invoke; police have no duty to clarify something ambiguous

      1. Miranda court viewed invocation as not necessary and that the waiver had to be unambiguous and clear

   2. Invocation of right to remain silent

      1. Suspect says “I don’t want to talk you”

      2. Police need to scrupulously honor Miranda (Mosley)

   3. Invocation of right to attorney

      1. Suspect says “I want a lawyer”

      2. Once a D invokes his right to an attorney, police cannot reinitiate contact without first providing a lawyer

         1. Want to prevent badgering by the police

         2. BUT if suspect voluntarily reinitiates, then the police can talk to him again

   4. Can’t use invocation as evidence during trial

      1. Silence during police questioning cannot be used against D if it follows Miranda warnings (estoppel + silence is ambiguous)

         1. Doyle: prosecutor used invocation of right to remain silent as evidence of guilt at trial

      ...