1 / 182

Justice Louis D. Brandeis , dissenting in Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

“To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means … would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”. Justice Louis D. Brandeis , dissenting in Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928).

blaine
Download Presentation

Justice Louis D. Brandeis , dissenting in Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means … would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”

  2. Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

  3. “What happens behind doors that are opened and closed at the sole discretion of the police is a black chapter in every country – the free as well as the despotic, the modern as well as the ancient.”

  4. Justice William O. Douglas (the longest-serving Supreme Court Justice in U.S. history), concurring in United States v. Carignan, 342 U.S. 36, 46 (1951)

  5. “It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.”

  6. Justice Felix Frankfurter, dissenting in United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950)

  7. “If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

  8. then Attorney General Edwin Meese explaining to the American Bar Association why the Miranda decision enabling those arrested to be advised of their rights was not necessary anymore (From The 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said (p. 100), by R. Petras and K. Petras, 1993, New York: Doubleday.)

  9. Clinical Forensic Psychology in Cases involving Disputed Confessions

  10. Referral question: To what legal question(s) will your data and opinions be applied?

  11. 1. Did the State fail to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his or her Miranda rights?

  12. 2. Did the State fail to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s supposed confession was freely and voluntarily made under the totality of the circumstances?

  13. 3. Should the Court suppress the defendant’s coerced statements to the police because they are so highly unreliable and virtually uncorroborated?

  14. Legal Question #3 Operationalized

  15. 3 (a) Did the interrogators use techniques of a type that have contributed to known false confessions in other cases?

  16. Did the interrogators use • coercion? • deception? • etc.?

  17. 3 (b) Did the interrogators use techniques likely to produce a reliable confession statement?

  18. Did the interrogators • record the entire interrogation? • scrupulously avoid contaminating the suspect’s mind? • elicit a detailed post-admission narrative?

  19. 3 (c) Does the suspect’s confession statement show guilty knowledge?

  20. Each of these three legal questions can be subjected to a person-situation analysis:

  21. Who is the person? What are his strengths and weaknesses; his knowledge, skills and abilities?

  22. What was the person’s mental and physical state at the relevant time • warning and waiver? • during police pressure? • while confessing?

  23. What was the setting – the physical and psychological characteristics of the scene where the interrogation and confession occurred?

  24. What techniques did the police use to influence the suspect?

  25. Consider the likely impact of police pressure in that setting on that suspect.

  26. Clinical Assessment of the Suspect cum Defendant

  27. Some psychologists, by virtue of their knowledge, training, and experience, are able to assist the court in each of the following areas:

  28. 1. Gather and analyze information regarding “the physical and psychological environment in which the [waiver] was obtained” (Crane v. Kentucky, 1986, p. 684).

  29. 2. Assess the defendant’s current mental status, including intelligence, memory, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and psychopathology.

  30. 3. Reconstruct the defendant’s mental state at the time of the waiver (similar to the type of assessment in insanity and other mental-state-at-the-time-of-the-offense evaluations; see, e.g., Rogers & Shuman, 2000).

  31. 4. Assist the judge in understanding interactions among the above.

  32. For suggestions/guidance on how to conduct the clinical assessment in disputed confession cases, see …

  33. DeClue, G. (2005). Interrogations and Disputed Confessions: A Manual for Forensic Psychological Practice. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

  34. See especially: • Chapter 8 • Assessment Procedures (begins p. 147) • Soddi Jones Sample Report (appendix)

  35. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481601&in_page_id=1811http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481601&in_page_id=1811

  36. What about interrogations by military and intelligence agencies? http://kspope.com/interrogation/index.php

  37. 1. Did the State fail to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his or her Miranda rights?

  38. DeClue, G. (in press). Oral Miranda Warnings: A Checklist and a Model Presentation. Journal of Psychiatry and Law.

  39. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

  40. What does Miranda require?

  41. Police must • advise suspect • warn suspect

  42. Miranda requires that the contents of the warnings be stated in “clear and unambiguous language” (p. 468) lest the process devolve into “empty formalities.”

  43. Requirements for a valid waiver of Miranda rights are described in Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 573 (1987):

  44. First, 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.

  45. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.

  46. Only if the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived.

  47. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Miranda, p. 475.

  48. What does it take for the prosecution to show that a suspect understood his rights at the time that he waived them?

More Related