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