-
Post-Miranda Due Process challenges
(Interrogation, ID, & Confessions)
Due Process = sources of rights for D's who lack Miranda or Massiah rights
-
Interrogation while in pain
(Mincey v. Arizona 1978)
Due process will not allow statments obtained where D was overborne, weakened by pain, shock, isolated from family and barely conscious
-
Confessions - Mentally ill
(Colorado v. Connelly 1986)
Coercive police activity is a neccessary predicate for unvoluntary confessions
-
Confessions - Coercion
(Arizona v. Fulminate 1991)
D's will overborne by threat of physical violence and promise of protection was coercive making confession inadmissable.
-
Break in custody interrogations
(Maryland v. Shatzer 2010)
Where D released from custody, returns to normal life, then confesses, no reason to believe change in heart was coerced.
-
Adequate Miranda Warnings
(Florida v. Powell 2010)
If the warnings reasonably convey the four rights available through Miranda, the warning is adequate.
-
Invoking Miranda
(Berghuis v. Thompkins 2010)
A suspect must invoke his right to counsel unambigously
-
Waiver of Right
- State need not show waiver was express, implicit waiver is sufficient
- No formalistic waiver procedure needed
-
Identification Procedures
(Eye witness Accuracy)
- Ability to percieve: distance, time, lighting & content of activity
- Ability to recall free of distortion such as: stereotypes, suggestive questioning, faded memory, cultural assumptions etc.
-
Positive Statements of Law
- No REOP exsits in publicly exposed traits (Katz)
- No REOP in sound of one's own voice (US v. Dionisio)
- Handwriting exemplar does not violate the 5th
- 6th Am protections applicable to ID procedures at or after adversarial judicial proceedings begin
-
5 Eyewitnes support criteria
(US v. Wade) (Neil v. Biggers)
- 1) prior opportunity to observe alleged criminal acts
- 2) the existence of any discrepancy between the pre-lineup description and D's actual description any ID prior to line of another peson
- 3) the ID by picture of the D prior to line up
- 4) failure to ID the D on a prior occasion and
- 5) the lapse of time between alleged act and lineup ID
-
Photo Lineups - Right to counsel
(United States v. Ash 1973)
6th Am does not grant right to counsel at photographic display conducted by gov't to ID offender
-
Identification - Single Show-up
(Stovall v. Denno, 1967)
Totality of circumstances, where victim's life hanging in the balance, single suspect show-up, only black peson is not unconstitutional under circumstances.
-
Identification - Suggestive Lineup
(Foster v. California, 1969)
Suggestive element of ID procedure makes the identification unreliable and violates D's Due Process.
-
Identification - Limited Suggestive photo ID
(Manson v. Brathwaite, 1977)
When ID made w/ no coersion and limited suggestiveness that is shown to work is ok.
|
|
