Confessions and Other Self-Incriminating Statements (5th/6th Amendment)

Question 1

Culombe v. Connecticut

Answer 1

Physical brutality, threats of physical brutality are such convincingly terror-arousing incidents

Question 2

Brown v. Mississippi

Answer 2

State action, whether through one agency or another, shall be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the baes of all our civil and political institutions

Question 3

Watts v. Indiana

Answer 3

Whether the conduct breaks the will to conceal or lie, or even breaks the will to stand by the truth

Question 4

Brooks v. Florida

Answer 4

Coercion- solitary confinement, restricted diet, limited water, naked

Question 5

Beecher v. Alabama

Answer 5

Coercion- morphine injections, treatment withheld, gave oral statement

Question 6

Spano v. New York

Answer 6

Coercion- overborne by official pressure, fatigue, and sympathy falsely aroused, after considering all the facts in their post-indictment setting

Question 7

Texas v. Cobb

Answer 7

Protection of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends only to the formal charge that has occurred

Question 8

McLeod v. Ohio

Answer 8

Constitution prohibits the use of statements against interest by a defendant who has not even been advised of his right to counsel

Question 9

People v. Hobson

Answer 9

An attempt to secure a wavier of the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in the absence of a lawyer, already retained or assigned, would constitute a breach of professional ethics

Question 10

Hoffa v. United States

Answer 10

You don’t have a right to counsel, because you have counsel, it’s AFTER you’re charged, the government cannot question or go the individual, they have to go to the counsel (absent a valid waiver)

Question 11

United States v. Henry

Answer 11

Sixth Amendment is not violated whenever the state obtained incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached

Question 12

Kulhmann v. Wilson

Answer 12

Defendant does not make out a violation if that right simply by showing that an informant, either through prior arrangement or voluntarily, reported his incriminating statements to the police

Question 13

Massiah v. United States

Answer 13

Right to counsel applies from the moment of the formal charges, not right from when there are formal charges and counsel has been appointed; applies right from the outset of formal charges

Question 14

Brewer v. Williams

Answer 14

Regardless of when they’re given, statements have to be voluntary; don’t admit statements into evidence that are compelled

Question 15

Pennsylvania v. Muniz

Answer 15

If the conduct displayed by a defendant is no testimonial, Miranda doesn’t apply (i.e. slurred speech, answers to routine questions)

Question 16

New York v. Quarles

Answer 16

Need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination

Question 17

Colorado v. Spring

Answer 17

Fifth Amendment’s guarantee is both simpler and more fundamental- a defendant may not be compelled to be a witness against himself in any respect

Question 18

State v. Ross

Answer 18

Failure to give the Miranda rights was in error, can anyone be sure that he was fully informed of those rights unless the full Miranda warning was given

Question 19

State v. Avila

Answer 19

Warnings given were not in compliance with Miranda and constituted error even though the defendant might have generally known as stated by the police, what his rights were

Question 20

United States v. Street

Answer 20

Warnings are even required if the defendant was a police officer who clearly knew the rights

Question 21

Escobedo v. Illinois

Answer 21

Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment

Question 22

Miranda v. Arizona/Vignera v. New York/Westover v. United States/California v. Stewart

Answer 22

You have the right to remain silent- anything you say an and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to assistance of counsel, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.

Question 23

California v. Pryscok

Answer 23

Warnings required and the wavier necessary in accordance with out opinion, are in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant

Question 24

Orozco v. Texas

Answer 24

Interrogation is in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way

Question 25

Mathis v. United States

Answer 25

When an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant want and is subjected to questioning, the privilege of self-incrimination is jeopardized

Question 26

Yarborough v. Alabama

Answer 26

So long as the child's age was known to the officer at the time of the interview, or would have been objectively apparent to any reasonable officer, including age as part of the custody analysis requires officers neither to consider circumstances unknowable to them nor to anticipate the frailties or idiosyncrasies of the particular suspect whom they question

Question 27

Howes v. Fields

Answer 27

Three elements that are not necessarily enough to create a custodial situation for Miranda purposes -Imprisonment -Questioning in private -Questioning about events in the outside world Relevant Factors -Location -Duration -Statements made during the interview -Presence/absence of physical restraints during questioning -Release of interviewee at the end of questioning

Question 28

Oregon v. Mathiason

Answer 28

Such a noncustodial situation is not converted to one in which Miranda applies simply because a reviewing court concludes that, even in the absence of any formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement, the questioning took place in a coercive environment

Question 29

Michigan v. Mosley

Answer 29

Any statement taken after the person invoked his privilege as the product of compulsion and would therefore mandate its exclusion from evidence even if it were volunteered by the person in custody without any further interrogation whatever

Question 30

Edwards v. Arizona

Answer 30

When an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights

Question 31

Rhode Island v. Innis

Answer 31

Undisputed right under Miranda to remain silent and to be free of interrogation until he had consulted with a lawyer

Question 32

North Carolina v. Butler

Answer 32

Accused may himself validly waive his rights and respond to interrogation

Question 33

Commonwealth v. Cohen

Answer 33

Held the waivers to be invalid applying the following factors: - Length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation - Whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given - Whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning - Whether the statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings

Question 34

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Answer 34

Waived his Miranda right to remain silent when he "knowingly and voluntarily" made a statement to the police

Question 35

Davis v. United States

Answer 35

Suspect must do so unambiguously in invoking Miranda right

Question 36

Commonwealth v. Cohen

Answer 36

Held the waivers to be invalid applying the following factors: - Length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation - Whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given - Whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning - Whether the statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings