The Miranda Doctrine Massiah Doctrine

1
The Miranda Doctrine Massiah Doctrine
2
Invocation

• Must be sufficiently clear that reasonable police
  officer would understand desire for counsel
  (Davis v. US)
• If right to silence, police may approach if
  police scrupulously honor desire (MI v. Mosely)
• If right to counsel, no approach possible
  (Edwards v. AZ)
• Police can re-approach if suspect initiates a
  more generalized discussion relating directly or
  indirectly to the investionation (OR v. Bradshaw)

3
Problem 8-28

• Did police scrupulously honor invocation?
• Did Scott waive in fact?
• Did deception render any waiver involuntary?

4
Miranda and the FPT Doctrine

• FPT does not apply to trial testimony of witness
  discovered through Miranda violative statement
  (MI v. Tucker)
• FPT does not apply to statement of defendant made
  after initial Miranda-violative statement as long
  as latter not involuntary (OR v. Elstad)
• Effect of Dickerson v. US (Miranda is
  constitutionally required)?

5
Problem 8-31

• Did detective scrupulously honor invocation?
• Does trial testimony contradict Miranda-violative
  statement?
• Policy or state grounds to exclude statement?

6
Miranda and Impeachment

• Miranda violative statement admissible for
  impeachment (Walder v. US)
• Invocation cannot be used (Doyle v. OH)
• Pre-arrest silence, or post-arrest silence absent
  admonitions, can be used for impeachment

7
Problem 8-32

• Is admission In the trunk admissible under the
  public safety exception?
• Was there an objectively reasonable need to
  protect the police or public from an immediate
  danger, an an exigency ..beyond the need
  expeditiously to solve a serious crime? (NY v.
  Quarles)

8
Problem 8-33

• Was Miranda required in light of custody and
  interrogation? (IL v. Perkins)
• Was statement involuntary?

9
Problem 8-34

• Was waiver valid?
• Was translation accurate?

10
The Massiah Doctrine

• Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated when
  police deliberately elicit incriminating
  statement from individual after indictment and in
  absence of counsel

11
Comparison to Miranda

• Applies out of custody, but only after formal
  charges
• Includes surreptitious approaches
• Deliberate elicitation v. Interrogation (US
  v. Henry ME v. Moulton Kuhlmann v. Wilson)
• Offense specific (McNeil v. WI TX v. Cobb)

12
Next time

• Self Incrimination outside of Interrogation, pp.
  718-759