chapter eleven – confessions and admissions: miranda v. arizona rolando v. del carmen

Chapter Eleven – Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona

Rolando V. del Carmen

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona

Before Miranda: Only Voluntary Confessions Admissible– Voluntary Confessions


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)


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)


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? – Missouri v. Seibert (2004)


The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona – The Case

•The Facts•The Legal Issue•The Court’s Decision •Case Significance


The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona – The Miranda warnings (all together

now)• 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.


The Miranda Warnings: Required by the Constitution, Not Just by Judges– United States v. Dickerson (4th Circuit

1999)– Dickerson v. United States (2000)


The Miranda Warnings: Must be Given for All Offenses Except Routine Traffic Stops– Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)

• The rule• The only exception

– Pennsylvania v. Bruder (1988)


Distinguishing the Miranda Warnings from the Right to Counsel– Massiah v. United States (1964)– United States v. Henry (1980)– Fellers v. United States (2004)


Differences Between Miranda Rules and Right to CounselMiranda Rules Right to CounselFifth 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 violatedcustodial interrogation except only if interrogationfor traffic offenses deals with same

offense


The Miranda Rights: May only Be Waived Knowingly and Intelligently– Intelligent– Voluntary– Mincey v. Arizona (1978)


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


The Miranda Rights: May only Be Waived Knowingly and Intelligently– The Validity of a Presumption of Waiver

from Silence after the Warnings• Teague v. Louisiana (1980)

– The Validity of a Waiver “Following the Advice of God”• Colorado v. Connelly (1986)


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)


Custodial Interrogation: When the Miranda Warnings Must Always be Given– Custody

• California v. Beheler (1983)– Suspect under arrest– Suspect not under arrest but deprived of

freedom


Custodial Interrogation: When the Miranda Warnings Must Always be Given– Interrogation

• When the police ask questions that tend to incriminate



• When the police create the functional equivalent of interrogation

– Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)



• When police appeal to the defendant’s 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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully Applying the Miranda Warnings– Using a Voluntary, but Inadmissible

Statement to Impeach a Defendant’s Credibility• Harris v. New York (1971)

– Using an Inadmissible Statement to Obtain Collateral Derivative Evidence• Michigan v. Tucker (1974)


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)


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)


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)


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


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)


The Harmless Error Rule and Miranda Cases on Appeal– Arizona v. Fulminante (1991)

chapter eleven – confessions and admissions: miranda v. arizona rolando v. del carmen

Documents

miranda warnings

basics of miranda

miranda rights

arizona confession

counsel miranda rulesright

arizona coercion

arizona rolando

arizona differences