Physical Coersion;

Beat him up to get confession

Psychological Coersion;

deprived him of food, water etc

Miranda Doctrine:

Miranda V. Arizona

Custodial Interrogation

Inherent/ Compelling Pressures

Assertion/ Waiver of rights

Reassertion of rights

Right to:

remain silent, see an attorney,if you cannot afford one one will be provided for you, appoint counsel anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law,

broader than the miranda rights

routine traffic stop, motrocyclist DWI

miranda applies to misdemears and felonies,

rights were not required at the stop but required at the police station

Custodial Intrrogation:

there doesnt have to be a formal arrest as long as the detention is equivalent to an arrest situation

Defacto Arrest: in custody but not told they are under arrest

Format arrest- they are told they are under arrest

not read his rights, no lawyer was present during questionning

NOT arrested but was interrogated voluntarily went down to the police station

confession was obtained by lie of the police

Coercive enviroment

where miranda is intended to apply

Whether police should consider age, history of suspect in determining if he is in " custody" and entitled to miranda rights

Was a minor charged with attempt of buglary and robbery

age IS relevant in determining if a minor is in custody

minor was 13 years old, miranda warnings required

Under cover agent was put in jail to be buddy with suspected murderer to obtain confession

Miranda warnings were not given when an undercover agent asks questions that could result in incriminating statements

 Miranda warnings not required if the suspect does not know that the undercover agent is a law enforcer

no chargers filed: 6thA righ to concil not to isssue b/c no charges had been filed

was interrogated in the conference room of a prison

statements were amissable

Refused to establish a Per Se Rule= IN PRISON =IN CUSTODY

Murdered 1 taxi cab driver and the other 1 taxi cab driver ID him Innis was arrested and in the car police were talking amongst themselves then innis cuts into the conversation and says okay ill tell you where the gun is

5th amendment P.A.S.I applies wasn't under interrogation

The police tell him that he is aloud to have an attorney but they cant provide one for him

was read all miranda rights

Satisfied Miranda in 5 to 4 decision (decision from supreme court justices)

not specifically told that you could a lawyer present during interrogation

Satisfied Mirand , Sufficient and clear

minor was subject to interrogation asked to see probation office and the police said he wasn't aloud too

Miranda- gives right to an attoryney

Difference between attorny and probation officer

Confesion invalidly obtained

asserts right to an attorney and continues interrogation without the attorney being present

right to attorney

right to council with them too

defendent was given attorney but not given time to council with attorney before interrogation

police have to wait 14 days before a second interrogation can be conducted after an assertion of the rights to council

Asserts right to silence reguarding a robbery homicide detective, not a part of the initial interrogation

believes  he is involved in murder

reads him his rights, Mosley waives them confession valid to the murder

- no questioning can be done until concil is present

warnings read and remained silent and didnt sign waiver of rights, Defendent stays silent only answers questions not pertaining to the case

then asked do you think god will forgive you for shooting at the mall? Defendent says yes

Do not need a written waiver or expressed waiver it can be implied

things happened outside of the defendents knowledge

has no affect on their waiver of rights

voluntariness of valid waiver means there is the absence of government coercion

guy claimed the vioces in his head told his to confess

confession valid, waived his rights

Miranda warnings were not given

incriminating statment made is inadmissible at the trial

CAN be used to impeach the defendants credibility

defendent refers the police to a friend who can confirm his alibi; friend makes an incrimination statement against the defendent 

Defendant inadmissibility of statement doesnt extend that statement given by the friend

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Miranda violation (not read rights - unintentionally) NOT a constitutional violation

arrested, interrogated, admits to being at the scene of the buglary

Routine practice at the police station to delibertately not given the miranda warnings to  get a confession

confession again was found inadmissable

killed victim, took his car, forged his identitiy

1st interrogation, asserts righ tto council

2nd interrogation: not read his rights, confession to forgerdy inadmissible

3rd interrogation: warnings given, waived, admissable confession to the murder

Public Safety Exception to Miranda

guys with gun is arrested in grocery store, hid the gun somewhere , police asks where the gun is located

Routine Booking Question Exception to Miranda

administrative questions like what color is your eyes...

drunk, slurred speech

opportunity to overturn the Miranda decision

Miranda was upheld, majority opinion

Defendent was DWI refused to get blood test

police obtained blood test and revealed intoxicatication

5th APASI not violated; only applies to testimonial evidence

Agents could hear co conspirators and  defendents conversation in the car with a radio underneath his seat

defendent said several self incrimination staments

it violated his 6th amendment right to coucil and it rendendered inadmissible

Reasonableness

Wong Su v US

constitutional violation

doesn't apply to the Miranda warnings

things gained after something was illegally obtained

i.e evidence, statements etc