5th Amendment Flashcards
(13 cards)
14th Amendment Due Process Voluntariness Requirement
In order for a confession to be admitted into evidence against the accused, due process requires the prosecution to prove, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that the confession was given voluntarily.
A court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession to determine if it was voluntary or if the suspect’s will was overborne. Coercive police activity must be present in order for a confession to be considered involuntary. Other factors bearing upon the voluntariness determination include: the use of force or threats of force; the amount of time spent in police custody or under interrogation; deprivation of food, sleep, medical care, or other necessities; psychological ploys and police deception; and the age, education, and mental condition of the suspect.
Miranda Requirements
- They’re procedural safeguards employed to protect the privilege against self-incrimination. Individual must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
- Not required to deliver the Miranda warnings in the precise formulation described by the Supreme Court’s decision as long as the warnings are administered in a form that reasonably conveys to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda
- Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to the individual throughout the interrogation. After the individual has received the warnings and given the opportunity to exercise his rights, he may knowingly and intelligently waive his rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But if the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior or during the questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. And if the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At the time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.
- No evidence obtained as a result of custodial interrogation can be used against the individual unless and until the prosecution demonstrates at trial that he received the required warnings and waived his rights.
Was there Custody?
- Miranda warnings are required when an individual is subjected to police interrogation while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, regardless of the nature of the offense of which he is suspected.
- The custody determination focuses on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views held by either the interrogating officer or the person being questioned. A court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and determine whether a reasonable person in the position of the individual being questioned would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave. Relevant factors include the location of the questioning, its duration, statements made during the questioning, and the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning. The ultimate inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest, coupled with consideration of whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of stationhouse questioning at issue in Miranda.
a. Although the custody determination is an objective one, a court may take a juvenile suspect’s age into account when it is known to the officer—or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer—at the time of police questioning.
b. A person temporarily detained for roadside questioning during a routine traffic stop is not ordinarily “in custody” for purposes of Miranda.
c. A probationer attending an interview at the request of his probation officer is not ordinarily “in custody” for purposes of Miranda.
d. When a prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct that occurred outside the prison, the inmate is not necessarily “in custody” for purposes of Miranda.
Was there Interrogation?
- The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily on the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police.
a. When a police practice is designed to elicit an incriminating response from the accused, it is likely that the practice will also be one that the police should have known was reasonably likely to have that effect.
b. Any knowledge the police may have had concerning the unusual susceptibility of a defendant to a particular form of persuasion might be an important factor in determining whether the police should have known that their words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
- An undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response. Such questioning does not constitute “interrogation” for purposes of Miranda. The concerns underlying Miranda—the compulsion felt by the suspect in a police-dominated atmosphere—are not present when an incarcerated person speaks freely to someone whom he believes to be a fellow inmate.
Miranda Requirements Exception (Public Saftey)
Statements made by a suspect during custodial interrogation before administration of Miranda warnings are admissible if the statement were not actually compelled and the police questioning was reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.
Limited by the exigency that justifies it, and allows the introduction into evidence only of those statements made in response to questions posed for the safety of the public or other officers. The exception does not permit the introduction into evidence of statements made in response to questions unrelated to public safety or designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect.
The availability of the public safety exception does not depend on the subjective motivations of the individual officers involved.
Miranda Requirements Exception (Routine Booking Questions)
Statements made by a suspect in response to routine booking questions posed prior to the administration of Miranda warnings may be introduced into evidence as long as the questions are reasonably related to administrative concerns and are not designed to elicit incriminating admissions.
Miranda Requirements Exceptions (Impeachment)
Although a statement taken in violation of Miranda may not be introduced in the prosecution’s case in chief to prove the defendant’s guilt, the statement—if voluntarily given and not actually compelled—may be used to impeach the defendant’s credibility if she takes the stand in her own defense and provides testimony inconsistent with the prior statement.
Miranda Waiver/Invocation (Waiver Generally)
- An individual may expressly or implicitly waive the right to remain silent and the right to counsel provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The inquiry has two distinct dimensions:
a.) The relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.
b.) The waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.
- A court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation to determine whether an individual has validly waived his Miranda rights. Relevant factors include the suspect’s age, experience, education, background, and whether he has the capacity to understand the Miranda warnings given to him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.
- Suspect’s mental illness or similar condition doesn’t render a waiver involuntary so long as there is no coercion or police overreaching in obtaining any incriminating statements.
- The failure of the police to notify a suspect that an attorney has been retained for him or is attempting to reach him doesn’t render a Miranda waiver invalid since events occurring outside the presence of the suspect and entirely unknown to him have no bearing on his capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right.
- The failure of police to notify a suspect in advance about the subject matter of the intended questioning does not render a Miranda waiver invalid.
- The prosecution has the burden of proving a Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evidence.
Miranda Wavier/Invocation (Right to Remain Silent [Invocation])
Suspect who wishes to invoke her right to remain silent under Miranda must do so unambiguously by, for example, stating that she wishes to remain silent or does not want to talk to the police. If the suspect invokes her right to remain silent at any time prior to or during questioning, the interrogation must cease.
Miranda Wavier/Invocation (Right to Remain Silent [Waiver])
Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the suspect, the suspect’s uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.
The admissibility of statements obtained after a suspect in custody has invoked her right to remain silent depends on whether her right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored. This standard is satisfied and the suspect’s statements are admissible if, for example, the police immediately cease the interrogation when the suspect invokes her right to remain silent, resume questioning after a passage of a significant period of time and the provision of a fresh set of Miranda warnings, and restrict the second interrogation to a crime that has not been a subject of the earlier interrogation.
Right to Counsel (Invocation)
- Suspect who wishes to invoke her right to an attorney under Miranda must do so unambiguously. This is an objective standard that requires the suspect to articulate her desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. If the suspect invokes her right to an attorney at any time prior to or during custodial interrogation, the interrogation must cease.
a. If a suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney, it will often be good police practice for the interviewing officers to clarify whether she actually wants an attorney, but the officers are not required to ask clarifying questions. If the suspect’s statement is not an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel, the officers have no obligation to stop questioning her.
b. A suspect’s request to have a probation officer, a relative, a friend, or a religious adviser with her during interrogation is not the same as a request for an attorney, and police are not obliged to end the interrogation to honor such requests. Such requests may, however, be considered as part of the “totality of the circumstances” determination of the voluntariness of any subsequent waiver of Miranda rights.
- The prohibition on police-initiated custodial interrogation after a suspect requests an attorney applies even if different officers, unaware of suspect’s previous invocation of the right to counsel, seek to question the suspect about a crime that is unrelated to the subject of the first interrogation.
- Police may reinitiate contact with a suspect after her invocation of the right to counsel if there has been a break in Miranda custody of at least 14 days before the renewed attempt at interrogation.
Right to Counsel (Waiver)
A suspect who has received Miranda warnings may validly waive the right to an attorney during custodial interrogation so long as the relinquishment of the rights is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The validity of a waiver depends in each case upon the particular facts and circumstances, including the background, experience, and conduct of the suspect.
If a suspect invokes her right to an attorney during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that she responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation, even if she has been given a fresh set of Miranda warnings. Having expressed her desire to deal with the police only through counsel, the suspect is not subject to further interrogation by police until counsel is actually present, unless the suspect herself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. A statement obtained by police following a violation of this rule is presumed to be the product of an involuntary waiver and is inadmissible.
Applicability of Exclusionary Rule
Any statements made by a suspect during custodial interrogation are presumed compelled and are inadmissible if the prosecution fails to demonstrate that the suspect received and waived his rights under Miranda. But other evidence that is “fruit” of the Miranda violation may be admissible if the Miranda violation was not deliberate, and if the suspect’s statement was voluntarily given and not actually compelled.
Testimony from a third-party witness whose identity is discovered as a result of a Miranda violation is admissible if the police did not willfully or negligently violate Miranda, and if the suspect’s disclosure of the witness’s identity was voluntary and not actually compelled.
Physical evidence discovered as a result of a suspect’s voluntary statement following Miranda violation is admissible. If the suspect’s statement is actually coerced, however, any physical “fruit” of the statement will be inadmissible as well.
When police obtain a confession following a Miranda violation and then obtain a second confession after administration of the Miranda warnings, the first confession is inadmissible, but the admissibility of the second confession depends on a number of factors.
a. Was either the first or second confession coerced, or were both given voluntarily?
b. Was the failure to administer Miranda warnings prior to the first confession a “good faith” mistake or oversight, or was it a deliberate interrogation tactic designed to circumvent Miranda?
c. Taking into account any changes in time, place, circumstances, and the content of the communications between the suspect and the police during the first and second interrogations, would a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes perceive the second interrogation as a continuation of the first, or as a separate and distinct experience in which the Miranda warnings effectively informed him that he still had a choice about whether to confess?
d. Did the police employ any curative measures before the second confession to ensure that a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would understand the import and effect of the Miranda warnings and of the Miranda waiver? Such curative measures might include a substantial break in time and circumstances between the first confession and the Miranda warnings that explains the likely inadmissibility of the first confession.
