criminal procedure
DESCRIPTION
Criminal Procedure. Class Eight. Today’s Topics: Confessions. Right to counsel Massiah Doctrine After formal charges Covert activity On-going investigation Waiver Exclusionary rule. Today’s Topics: Identification. Right to counsel Due process limitations. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Criminal Procedure
Class Eight
![Page 2: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Today’s Topics: Confessions
• Right to counsel• Massiah Doctrine• After formal charges• Covert activity• On-going investigation• Waiver• Exclusionary rule
![Page 3: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Today’s Topics: Identification
• Right to counsel
• Due process limitations
![Page 4: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Confessions: Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
![Page 5: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Massiah Doctrine
• Predates Predates MirandaMiranda by two years by two years• Holding: Sixth Amendment violated when Holding: Sixth Amendment violated when
agents deliberately elicited confession after agents deliberately elicited confession after D had been indicted and in the absence of D had been indicted and in the absence of his attorneyhis attorney
![Page 6: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Massiah Doctrine
• Rationale: To deny an accused counsel Rationale: To deny an accused counsel during this period denies her effective during this period denies her effective representation at only stage when legal aid representation at only stage when legal aid and advice would helpand advice would help
• Constitutionalized version of professional Constitutionalized version of professional ethics rule (adverse party may only be ethics rule (adverse party may only be contacted through counsel)contacted through counsel)
![Page 7: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Developmental Hiatus
• After Massiah, confessions analyzed under Sixth Amendment right to counsel entered dormant period
• Miranda gained ascendancy as vehicle for addressing propriety of confessions
• Doctrine regained prominence in 1977
![Page 8: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
“After Formal Charges”
• Brewer v. Williams (Christian Burial speech case)
- Discussed in search and seizure context concerning inevitable discovery doctrine. [Grid that would have led to discovery of murder victim’s body if suspect had not confessed]
![Page 9: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Brewer Facts
Des Moines Attorney• Advice to defendant not to speak• Agreement with police not to question
![Page 10: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Brewer Facts
Davenport Attorney• Advice to defendant not to make any
statements until consulting with his Des Moines attorney
• Direction to Des Moines officers that D was not to be questioned until after D had consulted Des Moines attorney
![Page 11: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Additional Facts
• D arrested and arraigned for child’s murder• Never during 160 mile trip did D express a
willingness to be interrogated• Frequently said, “when I get to Des Moines and
see [counsel], I am going to tell you the whole story.”
• Detective knew D was former mental patient
![Page 12: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Additional Facts
• Detective knew D was deeply religious• Christian Burial’s speech basically urged D to lead
detectives to girl’s body so she could get a decent Christian burial - - particularly before snow storm made it impossible to find her
![Page 13: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Brewer’s Holding
• D’s incriminating statements to police were obtained in violation of Sixth Amendment because adversarial judicial proceedings had commenced against him. Statements made were result of deliberate elicitation
• Concept familiar from Rhode Island v. Innis
![Page 14: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Brewer v. Williams: Waiver
• D can waive right to counsel
• Valid waiver not secured here
• Valid waiver requires State to prove intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege
![Page 15: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Brewer v. Williams: Lawyer Request?
• Suspect does not have to request lawyer to trigger Massiah protections
• Notice: waiver requires not merely comprehension but relinquishment
• Contrast Miranda, where suspect must actually invoke right to counsel
![Page 16: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Covert Police Activities• More protective than Miranda
– Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation - - thus suspect has to know he is speaking to police officer
• Contrast– Jailhouse plant: U.S. v. Henry– Listening post: Kuhlmann v. Wilson
• Analytical key: Is this a “passive listener”? Or are they eliciting information? Is the informant a state agent?
![Page 17: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
On-going Investigation
• Massiah not intended to curtail government efforts to continue to investigate crime with which suspect has been charged
![Page 18: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
On-going Investigation
• Only limits contact police may have with suspect once formal charges has begun and right to counsel attaches.
• Issue: Sixth Amendment prohibits officer from getting information from the accused on charged crimes– Maine v. Moulton
![Page 19: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Waiver
• Query: Under what conditions can D be said to have waived his 6th Amd rights?– Brewer v. Williams held gov’t must show more
than simply that D received warnings and elected to speak
• Possible approach: Conformity with Miranda waiver doctrine
![Page 20: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Waiver Scenarios
• Post-Miranda warning waiver– Issue: In Miranda context, warnings provide suspect
with all information needed to make a knowing waiver. Does the same apply for waiver of 6th Amd right to counsel?
– Patterson v. Illinois: D, after indictment, received Miranda warnings, signed waiver form, and confessed. He never invoked his right to counsel. Court rejected argument that Miranda warnings were not adequate to inform D of his 6th Amd right to counsel.
![Page 21: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Waiver Scenarios
• Post-invocation waiver– Michigan v. Jackson– Held: D could only have waived if he initiated
conversation and knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights.
![Page 22: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Waiver Scenarios
• Unrelated crimes– Arizona v. Roberson: Inapplicable in 6th Amd
context
– McNeil v. Wisconsin: Invocation of 6th Amd right to counsel is offense specific
– Texas v. Cobb (Supp.) (determining which crimes are related to the crime charged)
![Page 23: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Exclusionary Rule• Issue: What should be the remedy for eliciting
statement in violation of Sixth Amendment right to counsel?
• Open question• Possible Approach: Suppression of statement
– Arguments against: Analogy to good faith exception to Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule (inapplicable after weighing cost and benefits)
– Arguments favoring: Violation of Massiah not completed until confession admitted at trial
![Page 24: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Review: Fifth Amendment v. Sixth Amendment
• Issue: Waiving right to counsel after invocation
• Fifth Amendment: Edwards v. Arizona• Sixth Amendment: Michigan v. Jackson• Same Test
– Suspect must initiate– Knowing and voluntary
![Page 25: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Review: Fifth Amendment v. Sixth Amendment
• Issue: Waiving right to counsel after Miranda warnings
• Fifth Amendment: Moran v. Burbine• Sixth Amendment: Patterson v. Illinois
– No additional warnings needed– CAUTION: Might be invalid if (1) attorney
attempting to reach (2) surreptitious conversation between undercover officer and D
![Page 26: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Review: Fifth Amendment v. Sixth Amendment
• Issue: Waiver when not told attorney trying to reach
• Fifth Amendment: Statement valid – Moran v. Burbine
• Sixth Amendment: Statement Invalid– Patterson v. Illinois (footnote)
![Page 27: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Review: Fifth Amendment v. Sixth Amendment
• Issue: Use of covert/undercover questioner• Fifth Amendment: Permissible
– Illinois v. Perkins• Sixth Amendment: Invalid
– U.S. v. Henry (unless no government effort to elicit)
![Page 28: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Review: Fifth Amendment v. Sixth Amendment
• Issue: Questioning about unrelated crimes after invocation of right to counsel
• Fifth Amendment: Prohibited – Arizona v. Roberson
• Sixth Amendment: Permissible– McNeil v. Wisconsin
![Page 29: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Chapter IV: Identification
![Page 30: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Concerns
• Bad IDs are “conceivably the greatest single threat to the achievement of our ideal that no innocent man shall be punished.”
• 1996 U.S. Department of Justice study, Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science
![Page 31: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Types of Identification Evidence
• DNA• Handwriting analysis• Fingerprint evidence• Video surveillance cameras• Eyewitness testimony
![Page 32: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Eyewitness Testimony: Scenario I• Paradigm: In-Court Identification• Can you identify the person who robbed
your bank?• Yes• Would you please point that person out?
![Page 33: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Eyewitness Testimony: Scenario I• It is the defendant, seated there at the table• May the record show that the witness has
identified the defendant? • The record will also indicate• Are you certain of your identification?• Yes, I had a good view of him at the time of
the robbery.
![Page 34: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Scenario II• Paradigm: Testimony Concerning Prior
Identification [I.e., an identification made outside of court]
• Sometime has passed since the robbery, has it not?• Yes• But, did you have an opportunity prior to trial to
make an identification?• Yes
![Page 35: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Scenario II• When was that?• I went to a lineup and viewed seven men. I picked
out the defendant at that time also. That was several months ago.
• Where you sure then as to your identification?• Yes• Was your memory even clearer several months
ago than it is today?• Yes
![Page 36: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Exercise: Policy Considerations
• Does the defendant have the right to sit in the spectator or public section of a courtroom when a witness at trial seeks to make an identification?
• Assume D who asked for the in-court equivalent of a lineup has “stacked” the courtroom with people from her community or her immediate family who most resemble D.
• Should this be permitted?
![Page 37: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Examples of Eyewitness Procedures
• Photo spread
• Lineup
• One on one show-up
![Page 38: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Impact Right to Counsel Violation: In-Court ID
• In-Court identification testimony (Scenario I)• U.S. v. Wade
– Issue: Whether in-court identification should be excluded from evidence because D was placed in post-indictment lineup without notice to counsel
– Issue Restated: Should prosecution have opportunity to establish that in-court identification was based on observations of D other than the lineup?
![Page 39: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Purging the Taint: Items Considered
• Prior opportunity to observe• Any discrepancies between pre-lineup
description and actual description• Identifying someone else prior to lineup• Identifying D by picture prior to lineup• Failure to identify D on prior occasion• Lapse of time
![Page 40: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Impact Right to Counsel Violation: Prior ID
• Use of testimony in court concerning out of court identification (Scenario II)
• Gilbert v. California• Contrast, Wade• Per se rule of exclusion• Harmless error test
![Page 41: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
When Does Right to Counsel Attach
• Kirby v. Illinois• Initiation of judicial criminal proceedings is
starting point of adversary system• Filing formal charges (e.g. indictment)• Consequence: Wade and Gilbert do not
apply to pre-formal charges lineups or show ups
![Page 42: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Right to Counsel: Photo Spread
• Context: Photograph identification procedures [mug books, photo “lineup”
• United States v. Ash• Holding: no right to counsel, regardless if
held before or after indictment• Rationale: D is not present at photographic
display. No reason to have advisor or spokesperson
![Page 43: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Exercise
• Identify at least two suggestive possibilities that could occur during a photo display.
![Page 44: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Right to Counsel Review
• Procedure: Lineup, before formal charges, without counsel
• Result: Admissible
• Case: Kirby v. Illinois
![Page 45: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Right To Counsel Review
• Procedure: Lineup after formal charge, without counsel
• Result: No out of court identification testimony
• Result: No in-court identification testimony unless taint purged
• Cases: Gilbert/Wade
![Page 46: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Right To Counsel Review
• Procedure: Photo spread, before or after formal charges, without counsel
• Result: Admissible
• Case: Ash
![Page 47: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Due Process Limitations
• Stovall v. Denno
• Test: Totality of circumstances
• Result: Fundamental fairness may require exclusion of identification testimony
![Page 48: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Application Examples
• Neil v. Biggers• Simmons v. United States• Foster v. California• Theory: Due process test protects against
identification so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification
![Page 49: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Determining Strength ofWitness’s Pre-ID “Picture”
• How good a look before or during? crime• How attentive• Any memory loss• Any variance from description given by
witness (clarity and detail)• Having identified anyone else• Degree of certainty at time identification
made
![Page 50: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Reliability
• Manson v. Brathwaite• Issue: Whether due process compels
exclusion of pre-trial I.D. evidence obtained by police procedures both suggestive and unnecessary
• NOTE: Reliability becomes linchpin in determining admissibility of I.D. testimony
![Page 51: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Factors In Reliability Determination
• Opportunity to view• Degree of attention• Accuracy of description• Witness’ level of certainty• Time lapse between crime and
confrontation
![Page 52: Criminal Procedure](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815b13550346895dc8bfb9/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Other Considerations
• Prosecutorial steps to counter collateral issues of prejudice
• Voice identification
• Hypnosis– Open Supreme Court question– Three views in lower courts