120 likes | 234 Views
CP Lesson #10 – Protections Against Self Incrimination. 5 th Amendment Historical Development and Rationale Development of Specific Rights Determining if a Confession is Voluntary Miranda and its Requirements Waiver of Rights Exceptions. 5 th Amendment’s Protection.
E N D
CP Lesson #10 – Protections Against Self Incrimination • 5th Amendment • Historical Development and Rationale • Development of Specific Rights • Determining if a Confession is Voluntary • Miranda and its Requirements • Waiver of Rights • Exceptions
5th Amendment’s Protection • 5th Amendment says “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself.” • Historical Development and Rationale • History • What coerced confession does • Authoritarian government vs. democracy
Development of Right • Federal Right – Bram v. US (1897) • Due Process and Right • The “Voluntariness Requirement” • Brown v. Mississippi (1936) • Spano v. NY (1959) • Malloy v. Hogan (1964)
Determining Voluntariness • Free Choice • Totality of the circumstances • Colorado v. Connelly (1986) • Factors: • Where • Miranda • Who initiated • Physical or mental coercion • Prolonged detention • Prolonged questioning • Refusal of counsel
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) • Court grows tired of making case-to-case determinations on “voluntariness” • Sets forth Miranda Warnings specifically as a specific safeguard of the 5th right in “custodial interrogations” • Also discusses what “waiver” of the right essentially denotes and implications and parameters of waiver
Requirements of Miranda Regarding Waiver • Waiver must be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made • Waiver must be fairly explicit (not just nodding head); all circumstances considered though • Right is continuous – once waived, it can be reasserted later
Basic Three Part Test for Miranda • 1) Were the Miranda Warnings given? • 2) If they were given, was there a waiver of rights? • 3) If there was a waiver, was it intelligent and voluntary? • Note: Miranda Warnings need not be verbatim – as long as the substance is there
Upholding Miranda in Recent Years • 1999 4th Circuit says Miranda obsolete – overruled by federal statute (18 USC 351) • 351 Passed right after Miranda as backlash – sets standard back to vague ‘voluntariness’ standard – but ignored by federal officials until late 90s • SCOTUS deems 351 unconstitutional – Miranda is a constitutional rule, not just rule of evidence or guideline
Miranda Cornerstones • First, Custody • Is defendant deprived of freedom of action in a significant way? • Reasonable person test – would RP feel free to terminate encounter given all circumstances? • OR v. Mathiason (1977) • Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) • Orozco v. TX (1969)
Miranda Cornerstones, cont. • Second, Interrogation • Can be express or implied • Whether a RP would believe the officers’ actions or words are reasonably likely to result in a suspect’s incriminating response • RI v. Innis (1980) • Compare Williams (Christian burial) cases and AZ v. Mauro (1987) • PA v. Muniz (1990)
When a Suspect Asserts Rights • Asserting one or both • Michigan v. Mosely (1975) • Edwards v. AZ (1981) • Jail or prison (snitches) • US v. Henry (1980) • Kuhlman v. Wilson (1986) • IL v. Perkins (1990)
Waiver of 5th Rights and Exceptions • Suspect knowledge and waiver • Moran v. Burbine (1986) • Exceptions to Miranda • Public Safety – NY v. Quarles (1984) • Impeachment – Harris v. NY • Purged Taint – OR v. Elstadt (1985) • But, see Missouri v. Seibert (2004) • What about Patane and FOTPT?