Crim Pro Outline Prt 2

Crim Pro Outline Prt 2 - 01:22 Conflicts:

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
01:22 Conflicts: EOP might change? Katz; Trash   EOP not reasonable? Greenwood v CA Phonebooth not ok v. wire tapping informant ok? Privacy in home  v trash no EOP (despite intimate nature)? Thermal enhacement too much v. aerial mapping 12,000 ft? Kyllo, Dow Chemical IV.  Miranda Generally Esocbedo     : Applied only to situation where accused  in custody was refused a lawyer after one requested wasn’t warned of right to remain silent Broadened Right against Self-Incrim in  Miranda v AZ 1966 Developed procedural safeguards Indications that crt unhappy with breadth, cuts back on occasion General – set of 4 cases: Miranda rule: When an individual is taken into      custody      or otherwise       deprived of his freedom      by the      authorities       in any significant way and is   subjected to      questioning     , the privilege against self-incrimination is  jeopardized, requiring procedural safeguards to protect privilege to notify  person of right to silence to assure right will be scrupulously honored.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
o Protects from any degree of self-incrim o May be exercised at any time o May be  waived  where person has been informed by cops directly of their  rights o Right to counsel: Applies only where there’s questioning  (interrogation) If person can afford own atty , don’t have to inform of right to  appointment of lawyer Lawyers presence      does not mean right to consult w/ atty only prior to  questioning, but right to counsels presence during it.  (prevents  coercion) Any statement violating Miranda rules is inadmissible, even if voluntary  confession. o But may be introduced to impeach testimony given. o 5 th  Ammend basis for Miranda: More reliant on 5 th  than 6 th  bc custodial interrogation is inherently coercive,  thus not statement from DF may truly be product of free choice. o Uncounseled questioning also likely to induce confessions violating the 5 th . Rejects VOLUNTARINESS TEST for judging confessions b/c presumes  confessions are involuntary. Dissent: 5 th  prohibits being compelled to testify – not always violated b/ c not all questioning coercive, there are times when confessions are  entirely voluntary. Other ways to prevent coerced confessions, eg monitoring of  interrogations Bright Line rule of Miranda required b/c Case not a constitutional holding, shows Crt supervisory powers, however o Violation of Miranda is violation of  5 th  and/or 6th
Background image of page 2
o Violation of Miranda also: Admission of confession of most confession would violate Constitution Congressional attempt to substitute Miranda warnings: Title II omnibus Crime 
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 07/07/2010 for the course LAW Pro taught by Professor Yin during the Spring '10 term at Lewis & Clark.

Page1 / 22

Crim Pro Outline Prt 2 - 01:22 Conflicts:

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online