100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 11 pages.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.000. Besides, under the U.S.CONST. Amend. V. “No person . . . Shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . . and also “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” U.S.CONST. Amend. VI. Lastly, in Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 291–92 (1988), holding that a waiver must be given knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily; id. at 297 rejecting the notion that “the Sixth Amendment is ‘superior’ to the Fifth or that it should be ‘more difficult’ to waive”; In Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 403 (1977) held that the State did not produce evidence to show a “knowing and intelligent waiver” of Sixth Amendment rights. The People “must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntary.” As shown in (People v. Vasila (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 865, 873.) If a confession is involuntary, it must be suppressed. It is inadmissible under any circumstances, even if the defendant testifies. (People v. Neal, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 78.) While having some merit that our client did not have an understanding of his legal rights, we might lose this argument. 3. DID THE POLICE USED STRONG-ARM TACTICS OR DECEPTIVE MANEUVERS DURING QUESTIONING? The final claim to consider is whether the police used coercion to obtain the defendants confession. There are three main categories of false confessions that has been discovered: voluntary, coerced-compliant and coerced-internalized. The confession obtained from the defendant is a false confession is coerced-compliant. This type of
8confession is directly related to the use of extreme techniques during interrogation (Conti, 1999). The individual has full knowledge that they did not commit the act, however; the techniques used to coerce them into confessing. While the prosecutor may feel that this argument lacks value, police are trained to use several different tactics to get a confession from a suspect. Under two cases, a confession is involuntary if it is not “the product of a rational intellect and a free will.” (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 437 U.S. 385, 398; and Lynumn v. Illinois (1963) 372 U.S. 528, 534 a test is done to determine whether defendants “will was overborne at the time he confessed.” Subsequently, the question is whether the police used force or psychological ploy, which are so coercive that they tend to produce an involuntary statement, and therefore unreliable. (People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 340.) Coercive police conduct is a necessary predicate for a finding of involuntariness. (Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 167.) The test is, therefore, primarily objective. Subjective factors will be considered in determining whether the suspects will be overborne, but only if police coercion is present. Involuntary confession is one "extracted by any sort of threats or violence, [or] obtained by some direct or implied promises, however slight, [or] by the exertion of any improper influence..” (Hutto v. Ross (1976) 429 U.S. 28, 30) It was shown that the Relevant factors include "the crucial element of police coercion; the length of the interrogation; its location; its continuity," as