Chapter Eleven

1
Chapter Eleven Confessions and Admissions
Miranda v. Arizona

• Rolando V. del Carmen

2
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Before Miranda Only Voluntary Confessions
  Admissible
• Voluntary Confessions

3
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• U.S. Supreme Court Cases Before Miranda v.
  Arizona
• Coercion and Brutality Confession not Valid
• Brown v. Mississippi (1936)
• Coercion Confession not Valid
• Chambers v. Florida (1940)
• Deception Confession not Valid
• Spano v. New York (1959)

4
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• U.S. Supreme Court Cases Before Miranda v.
  Arizona
• Confession not Voluntary Not Valid
• Rogers v. Richmond (1951)
• Suspect Denied Counsel at the Police Station
  Confession not Valid
• Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

5
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• After Miranda The Three-Question Test for
  Admissibility
• Were the Miranda warnings given?
• If they were given, was there a waiver?
• It there was a waiver, was it intelligent and
  voluntary?
• Giving the Miranda warnings, but only after the
  police obtain an unwarned confession violates the
  Miranda rule therefore, statements made after
  the Miranda warnings are given are not admissible
  even if these statements repeat those given
  before the Miranda warnings were read to the
  suspect.Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

6
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona
• The Case
• The Facts
• The Legal Issue
• The Courts Decision
• Case Significance

7
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona
• The Miranda warnings
• You have a right to remain silent.
• Anything you say can be used against you in a
  court of law.
• You have a right to the presence of an attorney.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be
  appointed for you prior to questioning.
• Fifth addition not required
• You have the right to terminate this interview at
  any time.

8
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Miranda Warnings Required by the
  Constitution, Not Just by Judges
• Miranda v. Arizona governs the admissibility in
  federal and state courts of confessions and
  admissions given during custodial interrogation
  by the police. The Miranda warnings are a
  constitutional rule therefore, any law passed by
  Congress that seeks to overturn it is
  unconstitutional. Dickerson v. United States
  (2000)

9
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Miranda Warnings Must be Given for All
  Offenses Except Routine Traffic Stops
• A person subjected to custodial interrogation
  must be given the Miranda warnings regardless of
  the nature or severity of the offense. Exception
  The roadside questioning of a motorist detained
  pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not
  constitute custodial interrogation therefore,
  there is no need to give the Miranda
  warnings.Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)

10
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Differences Between Miranda Rules and Right to
  Counsel
• Miranda Rules Right to Counsel
• Fifth Amendment Sixth Amendment
• Custodial Interrogation Many Proceedings
• Police Suspect or Judge
• Given in absence of lawyer Lawyer must be
  present
• Must be given for every Once given is violated
• custodial interrogation except only if
  interrogation
• for traffic offenses deals with same offense

11
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Miranda Rights May only Be Waived Knowingly
  and Intelligently
• Intelligent
• Voluntary
• Statements given by a suspect to the police that
  are not the product of free and rational choice
  are not admissible. Mincey v. Arizona (1978)

12
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Miranda Rights May only Be Waived Knowingly
  and Intelligently
• Intelligent and Voluntary must be proved by
  prosecution
• Signed waiver not required
• North Carolina v. Butler (1979)
• Express waiver not required

13
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Miranda Rights May only Be Waived Knowingly
  and Intelligently
• The Validity of a Presumption of Waiver from
  Silence after the Warnings
• The trial court cannot presume a waiver from the
  failure of the accused to complain after
  receiving the Miranda warnings or from the fact
  that the accused spoke with the police after the
  warnings were given.Teague v. Louisiana (1980)

14
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Miranda Rights May only Be Waived Knowingly
  and Intelligently
• The Validity of a Waiver After a Prolonged
  Interruption Before Questioning
• The Validity of a Waiver that the Suspect has
  Withdrawn
• A Waiver? When the Suspect Requests Someone
  other than a Lawyer
• Fare v. Michael C. (1979)

15
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Custodial Interrogation When the Miranda
  Warnings Must Always be Given
• Custody
• The ultimate determinant of whether a person is
  in custody for Miranda purposes is whether the
  suspect has been subjected to a formal arrest or
  to equivalent restraints on his or her freedom of
  movement.California v. Beheler (1983)
• Suspect under arrest
• Suspect not under arrest but deprived of freedom

16
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Custodial Interrogation When the Miranda
  Warnings Must Always be Given
• Interrogation
• When the police ask questions that tend to
  incriminate

17
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Custodial Interrogation When the Miranda
  Warnings Must Always be Given
• Interrogation
• When the police create the functional equivalent
  of interrogation
• Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)

18
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Custodial Interrogation When the Miranda
  Warnings Must Always be Given
• Interrogation
• When police appeal to the defendants religious
  interests
• Brewer v. Williams (1977)
• When two officers converse between themselves
• When a conversation between a suspect and his
  wife is recorded by an officer
• Arizona v. Mauro (1987)

19
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Other Situations and Decisions on When Miranda
  Warnings are Required
• Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were
  Required
• Further Questioning about the Same Offense After
  a Suspect Asks for a Lawyer
• Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
• Minnick v. Mississippi (1991)

20
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Other Situations and Decisions on When Miranda
  Warnings are Required
• Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were
  Required
• Further Questioning about an Unrelated Offense
  After a Suspect Asks for a Lawyer
• Arizona v. Roberson (1988)
• Questioning about a Second Offense When the
  Suspect Has a Lawyer for a Different but Related
  Offense
• Texas v. Cobb (2001)

21
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Other Situations and Decisions on When Miranda
  Warnings are Required
• Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were
  Required
• Further Questioning about an Unrelated Offense
  Questioning a Defendant without a Lawyer After an
  Indictment
• Suspect Asking for a Lawyer during the Reading of
  Miranda Warnings
• Smith v. Illinois (1984)

22
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Other Situations and Decisions on When Miranda
  Warnings are Required
• Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were
  Required
• Interrogation During Detention when Detention is
  the Functional Equivalent of Arrest
• Knapp v. Texas (2003)
• Giving the Miranda Warnings Only After the Police
  Obtain an Unwarned Confession
• Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

23
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying
  the Miranda Warnings
• Questioning on an Unrelated Offense After the
  Suspect Indicates a Wish to Remain Silent
• Michigan v. Mosley (1975)
• After a Knowing and Voluntary Waiver, Questioning
  until the Suspect Clearly Requests a Lawyer
• Davis v. United States (1994)

24
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying
  the Miranda Warnings
• Using a Voluntary, but Inadmissible Statement to
  Impeach a Defendants Credibility
• Harris v. New York (1971)
• Using an Inadmissible Statement to Obtain
  Collateral Derivative Evidence
• Michigan v. Tucker (1974)

25
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying
  the Miranda Warnings
• Interrogating without Informing the Suspect of
  All Crimes
• Colorado v. Spring (1987)
• Oral Confessions Admissible
• Connecticut v. Barrett (1987)

26
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying
  the Miranda Warnings
• Confession Admissible despite Failure to Inform
  the Suspect of a Retained Attorney
• Moran v. Burbine (1986)
• The Physical Fruits of an Unwarned but Voluntary
  Statements
• United States v. Patane (2004)

27
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Situations in Which the Miranda Warnings Are Not
  Needed
• When the Officer Does Not Ask Any Questions
• During General On-the-Scene Questioning
• When the Statement is Volunteered
• When Asking the Suspect Routine Identification
  Questions
• Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)

28
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Situations in Which the Miranda Warnings Are Not
  Needed
• When Questioning Witnesses who are not Suspects
• In Stop and Frisk Cases
• During Lineups, Showups and Photographic
  Identifications
• When the Statement is Made to a Private Person,
  not a Law Enforcement Officer

29
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• Situations in Which the Miranda Warnings Are Not
  Needed
• When a Suspect Testifies Before a Grand Jury
• United States v. Manujano (1976)
• When There is a Threat to Public Safety
• New York v. Quarles (1984)
• When an Undercover Officer Poses as an Inmate and
  Asks Questions
• Illinois v. Perkin (1990)

30
Confessions and Admissions Miranda v. Arizona

• The Harmless Error Rule and Miranda Cases on
  Appeal
• The harmless error rule is applicable to cases on
  appeal involving confessions.
• Arizona v. Fulminante (1991)