Brief #16 - Neal Schuett PDF

Preview

Summary

Neal Schuett...

Description

Miranda v AZ

Facts: -

The defendant was brought into custody by police official and was interrogated so that they could obtain a confess. The defendant was not advised of his rights to remain silent and the ability to obtain a lawyer. During the interrogation the police tried to force a confession. The defendant spoke out about having an attorney but was denied. At his trial, his confession against him was introduced.

Issues: - Should the confessions obtained from a defendant who was subjected to custodial police interrogation be admitted as evidence at trial?

Holdings: - no Rules: - Unless made clear that a statement is voluntary any confession made is protected under the 5th amendment Rationale: - Prior to interrogation there must be knowledge that one can consult an attorney - “The privilege against self-incrimination secured by the Constitution applies to all individuals” - “Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today” -

Thoughts: - This is a very important case that we still use today

NC v Butler

Facts: -

Respondent was convicted in NC of kidnapping, armed robbery, and felonious assault. The prosecution presented incriminating statements made by the respondent after his arrest to an agent. He was read his rights and asked if he understood them, and the defendant said he did. But at trial he made a motion to drop his incriminating statements

Issues: -

Did defendant knowingly and voluntarily waive his 5th amendment right?

Holdings: - no Rules: -

Whether one rights were orally and written out that is it not enough to know if they understand their rights. There must be clear verbal understanding that one’s rights are known. Rationale: -

“And, obviously, if Butler did not have his rights read to him, and could not read them himself, there could be no basis upon which to conclude that he knowingly waived them.”

Thoughts: -

This case makes a valid point because what happen if a person does not know English, cannot read, or simply comprehend what is being told to them

CO v Connelly

Facts: -

Respondent made a statement to police officers about murdering someone and wanting to talk about it. The police read respondent their Miranda rights and he said he understood the right presented. He explained the whole story to the police and made the claim to the psychiatrist that it was the “voice of god”.

Issues: -

Were the statements made by the defendant involuntary?

Holding: -

no

Rules: -

Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.

Rationale: - "The aim of the requirement of due process is not to exclude presumptively false evidence, but to prevent fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence, whether true or false." - “Miranda protects defendants against government coercion leading them to surrender rights protected by the Fifth Amendment; it goes no further than that.” - The 5th protects against coercion not voluntary or involuntary statements Thoughts: - I think it is important to know what the 5th protects and what it does not which is clear in this case

Berghuis v Thompkins

Facts: -

Thompkins fled the scene of a shooting and was found a year later. He was interrogated for three hours in a room that was 8 by 10 feet. Before the interrogation that police recited something like the Miranda rights. After his right were given orally, they asked him to read them, and he agreed to read them but did not agree to say he understood them. It is not clear if a verbal confirmation was given

Issues: - Did Thompkins clearly waive his 5th amendment rights?

Holding: - Yes Rules: -

A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police

Rationale: - “If an accused makes a statement concerning the right to counsel “that is ambiguous or equivocal” or makes no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation”. - “The waiver inquiry “has two distinct dimensions”: waiver must be “voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception,” and “made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.”

Thoughts: -

I think this makes it clearer when one has or hasn’t waived their rights

Salinas v TX

Facts: -

Petitioner without being in custody or receiving Miranda warnings had voluntarily answered questions about a murder police were investigating. The police asked him if the bullet shells casing matched his gun along with other questions. He was then arrested for outstanding traffic warrant. He was released due to lack of evidence, but statements were made of petitioner making a confession. In trial, he made the claim in court that his 5th amendment rights were not made.

Issues: - Under the “circumstances” of this case, was the petitioner deprived of the ability to voluntarily invoke the 5th amendment?

Holdings: -

no

Rules: - If police do not deprive a witness of the ability to voluntarily invoke the privilege, there is no 5th amendment violation.

Rationale: -

“he was not answering the officer’s question on Fifth Amendment grounds. Because he failed to do so, the prosecution’s use of his noncustodial silence did not violate the Fifth Amendment.

Thoughts: - This case was straightforward and to the point...