IV. POLICE INTERROGATION A. BACKGROUND

3. Voluntariness due process cases

• 
  Facts: Defendants being held in custody and whipped with a belt until they confessed.
  
• 
  Dissent (Hughes CJ): The methods used to obtain the confessions were a clear denial of due process.
  

• 
  Facts: D deprived of sleep and continuously questioned in “relays of officers” for 36 hours.
  
• 
  Held: 36 hours continuous questioning resulted in an involuntary confession in violation of due process (note that D claimed that he never confessed, SC held that even if he did it was not a voluntary confession based on the circs).
  

• 
  Facts: D detained and questioned by officers in relays for nearly 7 days with rest breaks in between. Eventually D makes a confession after being continuously for 9 hours.
  
• 
  Held: If the confession is a product of sustained pressure by police then it does not issue from free choice. In this case, the relentlessness of such interrogation implies that it is better to disclose than to persist in refusal to answer questions which is D’s constitutional right. Accordingly, the confession was held to be involuntary and the conviction was set aside.
  
• 
  Dissent (Jackson): What are the alternatives to solving this heinous crime where there is otherwise insufficient evidence? If the ultimate quest of a criminal trial is the truth and if the circumstances indicate that no violence or threats elicited the confession then why should society be deprived of the suspect’s help merely because he was confined and question for a long time? Verification leaves me in no doubt that confession was genuine.
  

• 
  Facts: D is black and told that there was a white mob waiting outside police station unless he confesses.
  
• 
  Held: Confession was involuntary and D was denied due process (based on psychological brutality).
  

• 
  Facts: D is wanted for questioning in relation to child murder. Civilian spots D and takes him to an officer who detains him in a park office while waiting for patrol car to arrive. Officer kicks one of D’s shoes and parks officer slaps D in the face. Car arrives and while D is being transported in the car he is questioned by police and makes admissions. D is then interrogated at DA’s office in front of 19 people for 2 hours. D’s attorney arrives during the interrogation but was denied access to D.
  
• 
  Held: Confession was not the result of coercion or duress. There was a 1-hour passage of time between the “coercive act” at the park (i.e. kick/slap) and the confession at the DA’s office. Plus D was eager to confess and had decided independently of any duress by police to “make a clean breast of his guilt”.
  
• 
  Dissent (Douglas): Confession was preceded by physical violence from police and should be excluded.
  
• 
  Prof: Very likely that today a court would find that the confession was involuntary due to physical abuse. But back in 1952, the 5^th Amend had not yet attached to states.
  

• 
  Facts: Fight in bar, D leaves to go get gun and comes back and shoots victim. D goes into hiding and is indicted in his absence. D then surrenders and is arrested. D refuses to answer questions (and is denied access to counsel despite multiple requests). After 8 hours of continuous interrogation the police decide to use Bruno (a police officer who was D’s friend) and pretended that Bruno would get into trouble unless D confessed. D then made admissions.
  
• 
  Held: D’s confession in the “totality of the circumstances” was involuntary. D’s will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue, and sympathy falsely aroused. In considering the “totality of the circs”, the SC had regard to the following factors:
  
  • 
    D was foreign born;
    
  • 
    He had a limited education (only progressed one-half year at high school);
    
  • 
    8 hours of continuous interrogation;
    
  • 
    Denied attorney despite repeated requests;
    
  • 
    History of emotional instability; and
    
  • 
    Deceptive use of Bruno to elicit a confession.
    
• 
  Concurrence (Douglas et al): D had already been indicted and had asked for and been denied his right to counsel. Depriving D of counsel prior to trial may be more damaging than denial of counsel at trial itself and was a violation of 14^th Amend (note: that 5^th and 6^th Amends had not yet been expressly imposed upon the states). Accordingly, his conviction should be reversed on the sole ground that there was a violation of this 6^th Amend right to counsel.
  

• 
  Facts: D approaches a police officer and confesses to murder. Officer immediately gives Miranda warnings and D confesses again. D claimed that “voices” told him to confess and argued that his confession was involuntary.
  
• 
  Held: D’s will was not “overborne” by pressure or coercion from the police, therefore, not involuntary (police conduct was reasonable and excluding confession would not deter future police misconduct  i.e. no suggestion that police had improperly coerced D into confessing, rather it was off his own volition, no public interest in excluding his confession)
  

4. Policy considerations (advantages and disadvantages)

Advantages of voluntariness test

Disadvantages of voluntariness test

Wide scope to carry out interrogation (good for law enforcement) Higher interests in solving crime, easier to investigate Socially desirable to obtain truthful confessions Allows the court to balance the reliability of the confession against the offensiveness of the police conduct in light of the social need to solve crimes

Is this balancing (totality of the circs) test a good approach or is a clear rule preferable? Vague test – unclear when it will be satisfied No guidance for lower courts (resulting in unpredictable application) No guidance for police officers → no bright lines → creates uncertainty as to appropriate methods during the interrogation The test is very dependent upon a “swearing contest” between D and police as to what happened during the interrogation (no record if D is tired or vulnerable, word of the officers against D)  it is invariably easier for the police to win these swearing contests Susceptible to police manipulation (“gaming it”) and hindsight bias (hard for judge not to admit involuntary confession) Affects citizen trust in the integrity of law enforcement which in turn makes it harder for police to obtain co-operation of the people Tolerates at least some pressure being applied which can lead to police brutality. If people don’t know their rights then they may fear brutality Miranda ruling shows that voluntariness test didn’t really do much to eliminate police coercive practices Two classes of people don’t need a Miranda warning: career criminals and well-educated suspects = unfair advantage Unreliability of pressured confessions: innocent people have been exonerated by DNA evidence where they wrongly confessed under police pressure Bottom line: D is interested in remaining silent v. society wants him to talk → incompatible values and impossible for lower court to balance

Directory: sites -> default -> files -> upload documents
upload documents -> Torts Outline Daniel Ricks
upload documents -> Torts outline Functions of Tort Law
upload documents -> Constitutional Law (Yoshino, Fall 2009) Table of Contents
upload documents -> Arrest: (1) pc? (2) Warrant required?
upload documents -> Civil procedure outline
upload documents -> Criminal Procedure: Police Investigation
upload documents -> Regulation of Agricultural gmos in China
upload documents -> Rodriguez Con Law Outline Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation
upload documents -> Standing Justiciability (§ 501 Legal/beneficial owner of exclusive right? “Arising under” jx?) 46 Statute of Limitations Run? 46 Is Π an Author? 14 Is this a Work of Joint Authorship? 14 Is it a Work for Hire?
upload documents -> Fed Courts Outline: 26 Pages

Download 464.2 Kb.

Share with your friends: