Week 3: Miranda Rights Flashcards
(29 cards)
What was the Supreme Court like in the 60s?
Heavy emphasis on individual rights
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) context
In Jan 1960, a police arrest Danny Escobedo arrested for the murder of his brother in law. At some point during police interrogation, he implicates himself in the murder plot and is charged with murder
What is the main issue being dealt with in the Escobedo v. Illinois case?
General issue: Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel apply during pre-trial interrogations?
Case specific issue: Did the police’s refusal to fulfill the petitioner’s request to consult with a lawyer during his interrogation render his incriminating statements inadmissible?
What is the Sixth Amendment and why is it vague?
The Sixth Amendment guarantees for the accused the “assistance of counsel” in criminal prosecutions but doesn’t specify when the right first attaches
What is the goal of Miranda warnings?
serve the general goal to deter improper police conduct and the Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) context
Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and raping an 18 year old girl. After being questioned by the police for two hours, he confesses.
What was the admissibility fo evidence like before the Miranda v. Arizona case?
Prior to the case, the admissibility of an accused’s in-custody statements had been judged solely by whether they were “voluntary”
Escobedo v. Illinois ruling
General ruling: Police must honor a suspect’s request for an attorney during an interrogation
Case specific ruling: The incriminating statements made by Escobedo were rendered inadmissible due to violation of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel
What precedent does the Escobedo v. Illinois case set for tests of voluntariness?
According to the Escobedo case, what will happen if we have a justice system that relies on confessions?
It well become less reliable and subject to greater abuses
Because police will come to rely on extracting confessions for putting people away rather than a thorough investigation
What was the ruling of the Miranda case and its reasoning?
Ruled that a person must be informed of their rights prior to questioning because there is an inherent element of coercion present in interrogations
Do police have to read Miranda rights as soon as they arrest you?
No, they only need to read your Miranda rights before questioning
What are the acceptable conditions of waiving your rights?
Must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
Police will ask “Do you understand the rights I’ve read to you” so they feel confident that the person wanted to waive their rights
What happens if a suspect at any point says he wants to speak to an attorney?
Questioning must stop
Invoking rights during the 60s vs now
-Because there used to be a strong emphasis on indivudal rights, invoking your rights “in any manner’” was satisfactory
-Now, they must be invoked unambigiously
What qualifies as “any manner?” is sitting silently for hours invoking your rights?
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) context
Thompkins was questioned by two detectives about a shooting outside a mall in Michigan.
Before questioning him, police warned Thompkns about his Miranda rights. He refused to sign a waiver of his rights and was largely silent during questioning.
Doesn’t explicitly invoke his rights but when they ask him to sign a waiver of his rights, he doesn’t sign.
For first 2 and a half hours he’s almost entirely unresponsive.
Near the end of questioning, one officer asked Thompkins if he believed in God. He got emotional and said yes. Was asked “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” and he said yes.
Confession was used against him in trial and led to his conviction but Thompkins refused to write down the confessions.
What appeal did Thompkins make?
Thompkins argued that him not speaking signaled he was invoking his right to remain silent and he didn’t sign a waiver to waive his rights
What specific question did the Thompkins case ask?
Should his one word conession be used against him, since he didn’t waive his rights? Does saying “yes” constitute him waiving his rights?
What is the general issue debated in Berghuis v. Thompkins?
Do you have to unambigiously invoke your right to remain silent?
By refusing to invoke your rights, should police be allowed to continue questioning you? Similarly, should questioning end if you don’t sign a waiver?
According to Miranda, what constitues a waiver?
“a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.”
*What was the ruling of Beghuis v. Thompkins?
-remaining silent does not constitute invoking your rights
-set precedent that suspects must unembiguously invoke their right to remain silent
Davis v. United States (1994) context
Two sailors make a $30 wager on a game of pool, but the loser refuses to pay. After the bar closes, the inner beats the loser to death with a pool cue
Bloody pool cue found in his possession and implacates him in the murder
Read his rights and waives his right to remain silent both orally and written
Waives his right to an attorney
About an hour and half into the interrogation, Davis says “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.”
Police ask if he’s asking for a lawyer and Davis response no I’m not asking for a lawyer
After a short break they remind Davis of his rights to remain silent and to counsel. The interview then continues for another hour until Davis says he wants a lawyer before saying anything else. At this point questioning is ceased
What appeal does Davis make?
Davis argues that anything he said should not be admitted as evidence because, according to Miranda, he can invoke his rights at any moment and this was what he did
Views him invoking his Miranda rights at his first statement saying “maybe I should talk to a lawyer”
What did the court rule in Davis v. Unites States?
Ruled that ambiguous requests don’t satisfy the requirements to invoke your rights
