100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 5 pages.
timing and setting of the first and second confessions ocontinuity of police personnel othe degree to which the interrogator questions treated the second round as continuous with the first Bekermer v McCarthy Custody depends on the suspects objective freedom of action Court says the functional equivalent of an arrest depends on the totality of the circumstances (look at all the facts) oLook at 4 factors to see if they are in custody1.What the police say 2.Tone of voice of the police 3.The location Whether it is private space or public can affect the functional 4.Whether the officers were armed or not. Or in plain clothes or not Rhode Island v Innis (1980)What it means to interrogate Statements by the police in which the police know its self-incriminatory Don’t look at what the suspect was thinking, look at the objective circumstancesMichigan v MosleyCourt has made the Miranda decision 9 years earlier Question is if the police have given the Miranda warning and then the suspect asserts his right to silence can the police later re-initiate and interrogation with a new Miranda warning Can they interrogate a new subject with a new crime oCourt looks at two factors1.Was the right to silence scrupulously honored:
The amount of time allotted Whether fresh warnings were provided every time The subject and scope of the second interrogation The officer’s zealousness in getting a waiver 2.Was the waiver knowing intelligent and voluntarily? IMPORTANT: **** In Missouri no warning confession// warning confession – is the second admission admissible ****In Michigan Warning silence //warning confession -- is the first confession admissible Edwards v Arizona 1981What constitutes as a knowing intelligent voluntarily waiver, after the suspect asserts hisright to council? oAka talks after asserting right to council Rule is once a subject has asserted their right to council, he is not subject to further interrogation unless the suspect re-initiates discussion OR the suspect has already spoken to council The Due process voluntariness approachPolice conduct Before Miranda applies to custodial interrogation oDon’t have to show you are in custody or being interrogated with voluntary approach Is narrower than Miranda because it just has to be involuntarilyHowever, is still broader because it extends past custodial interrogation If you lose a Miranda case, you can try the voluntary approach Ashcraft v Tennessee (1924) Confessed to a crime but the supreme court ruled the confession is coerced