Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
A free membership is required to access uploaded content. Login or Register.

Criminal Justice

Uploaded: 6 years ago
Contributor: aleshaspellman1
Category: Forensic Science
Type: Lecture Notes
Rating: N/A
Helpful
Unhelpful
Filename:   Chapter+8.pptx (112.79 kB)
Page Count: 27
Credit Cost: 1
Views: 133
Last Download: N/A
Transcript
Self-Incrimination Chapter 8 Confessions play an ambivalent role in society and law, an ambivalence that’s ancient. They provide access to defendants’ innermost beliefs, knowledge, and thinking. They are also powerful evidence of guilt and remorse. The Role of Confessions The Nature of Confessions Difference between confessions and incriminating statements Confession: suspects’ oral or written acknowledgement of guilt Incriminating Statement: a statement that can imply guilt, but falls short of a full confession The Nature of Confessions Defendants confess or make incriminating statements in four different settings: They confess to friends and associates, who report these statements to officials. They confess during plea bargaining or while pleading guilty (the most common setting). They confess during sentencing when making incriminating statements to show their remorse. They confess during police interrogations following their arrest. The Self-Incrimination Setting Accusatory stag of the criminal process: when police move from a general investigation of a crime to building a case against a suspect At this stage, balancing the needs of law enforcement against the interests of individual privacy and liberty carries higher stakes for both suspects and law enforcement. Controversy over how much the Constitution applies in this situation The Constitution and Self-Incrimination Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has relied on three different provisions in the U.S. Constitution to develop rules to control police interrogation and confessions: The Fourteenth Amendment ___________ clause The Sixth Amendment _______________ clause The Fifth Amendment ______________ clause Due Process Approach The basic idea behind the due process approach to confessions is that confessions must be voluntary Three rationales support this approach: The reliability rationale—admitting unreliable evidence to prove guilt denies defendants the right to their lives, liberty, and/or property without due process of law. The accusatory system rationale—forced confessions violate due process even if they’re true; under our system, the government alone has the burden of proving guilt. The free will rationale—because involuntary confessions are unreliable and contrary to the accusatory system of justice, all confessions are coerced if they’re not “the product of a rational intellect and a free will.” The Right-to-Counsel Approach Part of the 6th Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall … have the assistance of counsel for his defenses.” By 1958, four of the nine justices were calling custodial interrogation a critical stage in criminal prosecutions. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)—The Court held that as soon as a police investigation focuses on a particular suspect, criminal prosecution begins and the right to counsel attaches. If you do not have a right to a lawyer until the time of trial and they confess before trial, then the trial is “no more than an appeal from the interrogation.” Two years after Escobedo, the Court shifted to the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination approach to decide the constitutionality of interrogations in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). According to the 5th Amendment, officers cannot compel suspects to answer questions. The Self-Incrimination Approach The U.S. Constitution and Self-Incrimination Amendment Stage of the Criminal Process Where It’s Applicable Fourteenth Amendment due process clauses All stages Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel clause All stages after formal charges Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause Custodial interrogation and all following stages All three approaches are still used depending on at which stage the interrogation occurs Claiming a Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Violation To claim successfully that their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated, defendants have to prove three elements: Compulsion “No person . . . shall be compelled . . .” Incrimination “ . . . in any criminal case” Testimony “to be a witness against himself” Whether testimony was “compelled” is measured by the totality of circumstances surrounding the statements. According to due process, confessions must be voluntary and knowing. The government can’t force defendants to give testimony against themselves—the meaning of “witness against himself.” Testimony is the content of what you say and write. The Fifth Amendment protects testimony, not physical evidence (for example blood, hair samples, DNA evidence, or a defendant’s voice). Compulsion and Testimony Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court established a “bright line” rule to govern custodial interrogation maintaining that they are inherently coercive because: Suspects are held in strange surroundings where they’re not free to leave. Skilled police officers use unrefined methods to “crack” the will of suspects. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: Police interrogated Miranda but did not advise him he had a right to have an attorney present. Miranda gave a written confession and was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. Issue: Does the Fifth Amendment apply to custodial interrogation? Holding: Yes Opinion: “We have concluded that without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. In order to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored.” The Miranda “Bright-Line” Rules The Miranda bright-line rule prevents police coercion while still allowing police pressure. During custodial interrogations, police must give suspects the famous four warnings: You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You have a right to a lawyer. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. Additional “Bright Line” Rules There are five additional “bright line” rules, but police don’t have to tell suspects about these: Suspects can claim their right to remain silent at any time. Whenever a suspect indicates he/she wants a lawyer, interrogation must stop immediately (or cannot start if it has not yet began) Any statement without a lawyer places a “heavy burden” on the government to prove defendants waived their right to remain silent and their right to a lawyer. Neither silence nor later confessions count as a waiver. Statements obtained in violation of the rules can’t be admitted into evidence. Suspects can’t be punished for asserting their right to remain silent. When Miranda Applies Miranda v. Arizona doesn’t command officers to warn suspects whenever they arrest them. They are required to give the warnings only if they take suspects into custody and interrogate them. Thus, police are able to question people, without “Mirandizing” them when: Questioning people at crime scenes Questioning people before they are suspects Questioning people during 4th Amendment “stops” In Miranda, the U.S. Supreme Court defined custody as being held by the police in a police station or depriving an individual of “freedom of action in any significant way.” The Court was sending the message that Miranda targets coercive atmospheres, not just coercive places. “Custody” is determined by a case-by-case evaluation of the totality of circumstances as to: Whether officers intended to detain suspects Whether suspects believed their freedom was significantly restricted Whether the investigation had focused on the suspect The physical surroundings The amount of evidence of guilt officers presented to suspects The amounts and kinds of pressure officers used to detain suspects How long suspects were detained The Meaning of Custody These detentions don’t qualify as being in custody: Detaining drivers and passengers during _________________ Requiring probationers to attend routine meetings with their probation officers Detaining persons during the execution of search warrants Non-Custody Circumstances The Public Safety Exception In new york v. quarles (1984) the U.S. Supreme Court added the public safety exception to Miranda. If a suspect may endanger an officer or somebody nearby, officers may ask questions before they Mirandize the suspect. The Meaning of Interrogation The Court has adopted two tests to determine whether police questioning amounts to interrogation: The Fifth Amendment “_____________________________” Test “Interrogation refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Rhode Island v. Innis The Sixth Amendment “____________________________” Test When police start formal proceedings (after the formal charge), the 6th Amendment kicks in and defendants can always have their lawyers present Police cannot skirt around this protection by asking questions that elicit a certain response (e.g., a question that indirectly addresses the crime and is expected to elicit a response pertaining to said crime) Brewer v. Williams The Waiver of the Right to Remain Silent Because so many suspects waive their rights and talk to interrogators with no lawyer, two questions are of great constitutional concern: What is a valid wavier of the right against self-incrimination? What is a voluntary confession? There are two waiver tests: express waiver and implied waiver. The Supreme Court has adopted the implied waiver test. _______________. The suspect makes it clear that he knows his rights, knows he’s giving them up, and knows the consequences. _______________. The totality of circumstances surrounding each case has to prove that before suspects talked, they knew their rights and knew they were giving them up. Knowing and Intelligent Waivers must be voluntary and knowing. Circumstances relevant to showing a this include: Ability to understand English Familiarity with the criminal justice system Intelligence Physical condition Education Mental condition Age Confessions are involuntary only if the totality of circumstances proves two things: Officers engaged in ________________ during the interrogation. The coercive conduct caused the suspect to make incriminating statements. Common circumstances courts consider in determining if coercive state action caused people to confess include: The location where the questioning took place Whether the suspect initiated the contact with law enforcement Whether the Miranda warnings were given The number of interrogators and the length of the questioning Whether food, water, and toilet facilities were denied Whether the police used threats, promises, lies, or tricks Whether the suspect was denied access to a lawyer Voluntary Self-Incrimination Courts have ruled that none of the following actions caused suspects to confess: Promises of leniency Promises of treatment Confronting the accused with other evidence of guilt The interrogator’s appeal to the defendant’s emotions False and misleading statements made by the interrogator Determining Coerciveness Researchers divide proven false confessions into three categories: _____________ false confessions The innocent person confessed without police pressure _____________ false confessions The innocent person confessed because of police pressure during interrogation _____________ false confessions Some innocent but vulnerable suspects subjected to highly suggestive interrogation tactics may confess to get the situation over with and may actually come to believe they actually committed the crime False Confessions Reforms to Reduce False Confessions Among the reforms considered to reduce false confessions: Reducing _______________ in custody and interrogation Restrict police use of ________________ during interrogation _____________ interrogations and confessions Today, the federal system and 20 states require taped interrogations for serious crimes Another 1,000 agencies voluntarily do so

Related Downloads
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  769 People Browsing
 113 Signed Up Today
Your Opinion
Where do you get your textbooks?
Votes: 284