American Criminal Justice Quiz 3

under the military commisions act of 2006, statements are admissible if ....

1, totality of circumstances renders statements reliable 2. interest of justice would be served by admission 3. statements not obtained by cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

Dual Sovereigns

Use-Fruits Immunity is Sufficient for _______, as decided in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n (1964)

Inculpatory evidence

is evidence that shows, or tends to show, a person's involvement in an act, or evidence that can establish guilt

Lefkowitz v Turley (1973)

issue was Whether the State could compel employees to waive their constitutional privilege; court held there is no Penalty for Invocation of right; Immunity Required Before a Waiver Can be Required

RI v. Innis (1980)

interrogation means any words or actions on part of police that they should know are reasonably likely to illicit a criminal response; court held that interrogation is not just direct questioning but also its "functional equivalent."

miranda warnings

A Right to Remain Silent Any Statement May Be used Against The Suspect Right to Presence of Attorney; Appointed If Indigent

Minnesota v. Murphy (1984)

A probationer's incriminating statements to a probation officer may be used as evidence if the probationer does not specifically claim a right against self-incrimination.

US v. Balsys (1998)

Court held that although resident aliens are entitled to the same Fifth Amendment protections as citizen "persons" the risk of their deportation is not sufficient to sustain a self-incrimination privilege intended to apply only to the United States government.

Allen v. Illinois

Court held that commitment proceedings under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act were not criminal and therefore the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause did not prevent the use of defendant's compelled statements because the legislature characterized the statute as civil and treatment-oriented.

Kastigar v US (1972)

Court held that the government can overcome a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege by granting a witness "use and derivative use" immunity in exchange for his testimony; and Transactional is Immunity Not Required

unequivocal

Davis v. US (1994) held that a suspect must make an ____ request for counsel

Shapiro v. US (1948)

Businesses May Be Required to Make Records (Compulsion) and to Produce Them; Govt May Require Records and then Use Them

exculpatory evidence

Evidence that tends to show a person's innocence

Miranda v. AZ (1966)

Four Consolidated Cases which Established Miranda warnings of right to counsel and right to silence; must be given before arrest or criminal questioning; clarified 5th and 6th Amendments.

what is the quid pro quo for requiring a waiver against 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination?

Immunity

why is the privilege not available in foreign prosecutions?

Immunity is the Substitute for Privilege and the US Cannot Give Foreign Immunity

1964

In what year did the 5th amendment become held to the states?

custodial

Limited interrogation at customs checkpoints is not considered ______

Chavez v. Martinez (2003)

Majority Holds that 5th Amend. Protects Only Against Use of Compelled Statements; a witness' right against self-incrimination has only been violated if a compelled statement is actually used as evidence in a criminal case

14

Maryland v Shatzer (2010) extended the Edwards Rule to a maximum period of ___ days

Gardner v Broderick (1968)

Police Officer Discharged After Invoking Privilege Before Grand Jury Asking About Performance of Duties; SC held Officer Could Not Be Fired for Invoking Privilege

Malloy v Hogan (1964)

Privilege Held Applicable to States, incorporated 5th amendment's protection against self-incrimination into the due process clause to reach down to the state and local levels

Griffin v. California (1965)

Prosecutors may not mention to jury or draw inferences from a defendants choice not to justify

Hoffman v US (1951)

SC held Any Possibility of Incrimination Is Enough to invoke privilege, Judge Must Assess the Privilege Claim w/o Forcing the Claimant to Incriminate Himself/Herself. Reversed Hoffman's conviction

Marchetti v US (1968)

SC held that because it was clear that Congress intended information about registration and the payment of the occupational tax to be given to law enforcement officials, Marchetti had a real and substantial fear of prosecution and therefore it was appropriate for him to raise the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination as a defense against Gambling Registration and Tax on Wagers

McKune v. Lile (2002)

SC held that it did not violate the privilege against self-incrimination to require a prisoner seeking admission to a sex offender rehabilitation program to detail crimes, Although the treatment program meant substantially more freedom for the inmate, the Court found that the pressure to admit to crimes that could lead to further criminal liability did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Benefit-Penalty Distinction → denial of a benefit does not constitute compulsion.

AZ v. Fulminante (1991)

SC held that the Threat of potential Physical Violence in prison Made Fulimante's Confession (to murdering his stepdaughter was) Involuntary

Colorado v. Conelly (1986)

SC held that the focus of 5th amendment On Police Conduct Not Subconscious thoughts of the defendant

What are the three components of the "cruel trilemma?"

Self-Accusation, Perjury or Contempt

Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard (1998)

The Court found that there was not a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination when a person applying for clemency had to answer questions that could include incriminating information

Mitchell v. US (1999)

The court held that a guilty plea is not also a waiver of the privilege at sentencing. It also held that the trial court may not draw adverse inference by the defendant's silence while facts bearing upon the severity of the sentence are considered

Berkemer v McCarty (1984)

a decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that, in the case of a person stopped for a misdemeanor traffic offense, once they are in custody, the protections of the Fifth Amendment apply to them, however routine questioning of motorists detained pursuant to traffic stops is not custodial interrogation under Miranda.

Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession (two-step process)

when is the privilege against self-incrimination available?

any Time Govt Seeks To Require Disclosure of Info That Might Incriminate

what are the purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination?

avoid the cruel trilemma, protect the innocent, Avoid Unreliability of Coerced Statements, deter purjury, preserve Fair Individual-State Balance

Ohio v. Reiner (2001)

babysitter case: SC held that a witness who claims no involvement in a crime may still assert a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination

due process clause

before 1964 and Miranda, the SC primarily relied upon the _______ rather than the 5th amendment

Brown v. Mississipi (1936)

case that ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by police violence cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

when is the privilege not available?

civil proceedings, when invoked b/c of risk of foreign prosecutions

promises, trickery

confessions may still be considered voluntary even if police use ____ or _____

Dickerson v. US (2000)

court upheld the Miranda decision; struck down a congressional act allowing voluntary confessions to be accepted before their miranda rights had been read

who's responsibility is it to show a waiver was voluntary?

heavy burden is on the Government -- Waiver Not Presumed From Silence After Receiving Warnings or from Confession

AZ v. Roberson (1988)

held The Edwards rule applies to bar police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel in the context of a separate investigation

Maryland v Shatzer (2010)

held that Edwards v. Arizona did prohibit the re-interrogation of a suspect who had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, because a substantial amount of time had passed

Edwards v. AZ (1981)

held that If a Suspect Invokes Rt to Have Counsel Present, There Can Be No Further Interrogation Until Counsel is Provided Unless (1) Suspect Initiates Further Communication and (2) Waives His Miranda Rights

Hiibel v Sixth Judicial Dist of Nevada

held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating

"swords and shields"

idea that the privilege against self-incrimination is to be used as a shield against the government, not a sword

Garrity v NJ (1967)

police officers being investigated Told Answer or Be Fired and Anything Said Can Be Used; SC held that law enforcement officers and other public employees have the right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination.

The Edwards rule

preceded by Edwards v. Arizona (1981) held that a suspect who has "expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication."

Spano v. NY (1959)

represented the SC movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in Miranda v. Arizona. In Spano, the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel

Military Commissions Act of 2006

ruled that Statements obtained through torture are inadmissible, BUT Coerced confessions are not totally prohibited

Impeachment

statements obtained in violation of Miranda may still be used for _______ (1971)

Witness impeachment

the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial