Constitutional Law/Criminal Procedure

• 
  Facts: Defendant got into a shoot out with the owner of a store. Owner was taken to the hospital and the defendant was later brought to the hospital for a gun wound, and store owner told cops that he was the man who shot him. Cops obtained a search warrant in order to remove the bullet from his person.
  
• 
  Issue: Whether a state may consistently with the 4^th compel a suspect to undergo surgery of this kind to search for evidence of a crime?
  
• 
  Rule: A compelled surgery into an individual’s body for evidence implicates the 4^th amendments reasonable expectation of privacy and reasonableness of surgical intrusion beneath the skin depends on a case by case basis. Applying the Schmerber balancing test, we believe that the appeals court reached the right result in that the intrusion of privacy outweighed the need for surgery as state had other ways of proving its case and danger surgery produced far outweighed the need for evidence where the commonwealth failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the bullet.
  

Interrogations, Statements and Confessions

• 
  14^th amendment= voluntariness
  
• 
  5^th amendment= right against self-incrimination (Miranda)
  
• 
  4^th amendment= statements that are fruit of poisonous tree
  
• 
  Confessions- 14^th Amendment
  
• 
  Statement- Voluntariness
  
• 
  Admissions- Voluntary, knowingly, intelligently
  
• 
  central core of Miranda decision is that defendant is alone in custody and thus decision now provides defendant with Miranda (a warning) while in custody; thus not alone
  
• 
  McLaughlin case—held 72 hours defendant can be in custody before case reviewed by member of judicial branch
  
• 
  Problem arises when police take statement in violation of these rules which leads to suppression of evidence
  
• 
  Intentional violations of rules might allow for suppression
  
• 
  Confession= statement admitting or acknowledging all facts necessary for conviction of the crime charged vs. admission= an acknowledgment of one or more facts that tend to establish guilt but not of all elements of the crime
  
• 
  Requirement that confessions be voluntary (some jurisdictions make judges decide this, others make the jury decide it)
  
• 
  Traditional voluntariness mandated exclusion of a confession obtained as a result of a promise
  
• 
  One way to attack confessions, statements, and admissions is Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Have to have Miranda before interrogation
  
• 
  During Terry Stops, no Miranda; if there is a functional equivalent of an arrest, maybe Miranda; if there is an arrest there has to be Miranda.
  
• 
  Exam Tip: Be careful that moving someone from scene of Terry to police station briefly is not an arrest. Ex. For identification. 4th Amendment is not necessarily and arrest to move someone briefly.
  

• 
  2 requirements for Miranda: 1. In custody 2. Being questioned/interrogated
  
• 
  movement across nation to have statements either video or audio recorded but Supreme Court has never ruled it is a requirement
  
• 
  right against self-incrimination requires you know your right not to speak with police
  
  • 
    waiver of Miranda requires knowingly, intelligently, and freely
    

• 
  several cases say don’t have to follow a particular script so long as all rights are conveyed
  
• 
  take a risk whenever Miranda is not given despite what suspect may claim about knowing rights
  

1. 
   emergency (from New York v. Quarles)
   
2. 
   routine booking questions
   
3. 
   impeachment
   
   1. 
      violation of Miranda that excludes evidence/statements does not prevent impeachment from happening if defendant takes the stand
      
   2. 
      however, involuntary statements are not allowed to be used for impeachment
      

• 
  standard for these is more likely than not
  
• 
  if defendant initiates statement, not interrogation and thus not entitled to Miranda
  
• 
  if on bail, does not mean automatically deemed in custody and thus entitled to Miranda
  
• 
  Edwards rule says 14 days to re-approach after asking for council; no specified days to re-approach after silence—just what is reasonable
  

• 
  from the 14^th amendment
  
• 
  must be freely and voluntarily given; not coerced directly or implied
  
  • 
    measured by totality of the circumstances
    

• 
  police are allowed to make false promises and lies to suspects because issue is whether statements are still voluntary if given based off false promise of leniency
  
• 
  lies are generally ok but promises aren’t because different than false promise—get away with it under voluntariness for false promise
  

• 
  generally silence cannot be used against suspect
  
• 
  however can be used in the following circumstances:
  

1. 
   impeach defendant with silence but only if no Miranda warnings and no interrogation even when in custody
   
2. 
   consciousness of guilt (Salinas case)
   
   1. 
      from Salinas case—voluntarily at police station; not in custody thus no Miranda
      
      1. 
         conversation friendly until asked if shotgun will match, he becomes visibly nervous/starts changing behavior
         
3. 
   adoptive admission (silence)—rule 801(d)(1)(b)
   

• 
  can be in custody without arrest
  
• 
  if under arrest, then in custody
  
• 
  for Miranda need arrest or its functional equivalent (so arrest-like?)
  
• 
  traffic stop like Terry stop—not entitled to Miranda
  
  • 
    paragraph from Berkemer Case that is relevant:
    
    • 
      “In both of these respects, the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a so-called Terry stop, than to a formal arrest. Under the 4^th amendment, we have held a policeman who lacks probable cause to but whose observations lead him to reasonably suspect that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion. The stop and inquiry must be reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation. Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee’s answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released. The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda. The similarly noncoercive aspect of ordinary traffic stops prompt us to hold that persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not in custody for the purposes of Miranda.”
      
• 
  look at situations that mirror arrest but not arrest because could be considered custody and thus requires Miranda
  

• 
  Powell v. Nevada
  
  • 
    Father brought son to hospital with severe injuries
    
  • 
    Officers held the father on probable cause –past the 48hrs Powell was held and made a statement
    
  • 
    Statement not suppressed because had him on probable cause and the violation of the 48hr rule did not lead to the confession
    
• 
  Colorado v. Connelly
  
  • 
    His statements to police not voluntary/freely given because suffers from mental illness
    
  • 
    He walked up to traffic cop directing traffic and admitted to killing someone
    
  • 
    No 14^th amendment violation because no state agent compelled the statement
    
  • 
    However his mental illness prevented him from waiving Miranda rights (5^th amendment)
    
    • 
      5^th amendment right against self-incrimination arises from voluntariness—must be knowingly and intelligently given or waived
      

• 
  Moore v. Czerniak
  
  • 
    Went for appeal because of ineffective counsel
    
  • 
    Officers told him they would go to bat for him—like they did for his brother
    
  • 
    Promise didn’t affect what he said because didn’t actually confess to the crime
    

• 
  Miranda v. Arizona
  
  • 
    Has been undercut over years
    
  • 
    Miranda applies whenever in custody—not just when under arrest
    
  • 
    Balance—trying to bring a lawyer to jail without having to pay for one
    
  • 
    Interrogation must stop when invoking right to lawyer
    
    • 
      If continue interrogation, must have lawyer present if asked for one
      

• 
  Miranda rights include:
  
  • 
    1. Right to remain silent—dicta says must explain it
    
    • 
      if speak, anything you say can and will be used against you
      
  • 
    2. Right to an attorney—even if you cannot afford one, one will be provided
    
  • 
    created to avoid isolation
    

• 
  Spring v. Moran
  
  • 
    Police need not tell DEF what they want to interrogate him about
    
  • 
    Don’t need to advise suspect that cops wish to question him, or that they need to say what it’s about
    
  • 
    Did he voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently wave his rights? He ended up admitting to another murder
    
  • 
    Holding: We hold a suspect’s awareness of all the possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment rights.
    

• 
  Mauro Case
  
  • 
    Killed his son, wife brought to station and he wants to talk to her
    
  • 
    Officer allows it but tells them being recorded and places tape recorder in front of them
    
  • 
    Still makes statements about killing his son
    
  • 
    The police's actions following respondent's refusal to be questioned without a lawyer did not constitute interrogation or its functional equivalent.
    
• 
  Rhode Island v. Innis
  
  • 
    Blurted out where gun was thus no interrogation and no Miranda discussion
    
  • 
    He argues it was indirect interrogation but court disagrees
    
  • 
    Need custody and interrogation (direct or implied) for Miranda
    

• 
  You can’t give Miranda after you intentionally get the person to confess.
  
• 
  Being drunk; severely injured; heavily medicated may still be deemed to be voluntary. It’s a part of the totality of the circumstances if it was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made in effective waiver of Miranda. It’s a subjective decision that’s made by looking at the totality.
  

Voluntariness

5th Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination

Confessions/Statements

Burden of Persuasion

“Live” issue at trial

Defendant has to produce evidence that this is a live issue in this trial.

14^th Amendment-Voluntariness

1. 
   My client made an admission the prosecution is seeking to admit
   

The burden then shifts to government to prove it was a voluntary statement. The burden is the preponderance of the evidence—low standard; more likely than not.

My client made a statement and did not give him Miranda correctly. How was it not given correctly? If you don’t say how you haven’t met your burden and you’re making a conclusory statement. Miranda is meant for statements and not physical evidence as a result of Fruit from the Poison Tree.