How to Analyze Police Interrogations under Miranda v. Arizona on a Criminal Procedure Essay
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 гру 2018
- 📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/law-school
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/bar-exam
Free courses: studicata.com/free-courses
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/groups/community
Testimonials: studicata.com/testimonials-an...
Submit a review: shoutout.studicata.com
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/android
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Learn more: studicata.com
🎬 VIDEO INFO
How to Analyze Police Interrogations under Miranda v. Arizona on a Criminal Procedure Essay
5TH AMENDMENT: INVOLUNTARY STATEMENTS
The 5th Amendment protects against government compulsion of involuntary statements. A statement is involuntary if the law enforcement officers used tactics that undermined the suspect's ability to exercise free will. Relevant factors in determining involuntariness include: (a) the length of the interrogation; (b) the time and location where the interrogation took place; (c) the character of the person being interrogated (e.g., age, experience, state of health, education level, sophistication, intoxication, mental condition, etc.); AND (d) police tactics used (e.g., force, threats, deceit, etc.).
An involuntarily obtained statement is NOT admissible against a defendant for substantive purposes or for impeachment purposes. Evidence obtained from an involuntary statement is fruit of the poisonous tree and is presumptively inadmissible.
POLICE INTERROGATIONS UNDER MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
Under Miranda v. Arizona, any incriminating statement obtained as a result of a CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION (i.e., suspect is in custody and subject to police interrogation) may NOT be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial UNLESS the police informed the suspect of his Miranda rights prior to the custodial interrogation (this includes informing the subject that: he has the right to remain silent; any statement he makes may be used against him in court; he has the right to consult an attorney and to have the attorney present during questioning; and he has the right to have an attorney appointed if he cannot afford one.)
"Custodial"
A person is in custody when he reasonably believes that he is NOT free to terminate the encounter AND his movement is restricted in a manner typically associated with a formal arrest (e.g., suspect is handcuffed and put in the back of a police cruiser).
"Interrogation"
A person is subject to an interrogation when the police know or should know that their words or actions are likely to elicit an incriminating response.
WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS
A defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. The burden is on the government to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily.
Even if the suspect validly waives his Miranda rights, the police MUST cease their custodial interrogation if either of the following occurs: (1) the party being questioned affirmatively invokes her right to remain silent (after a substantial period of time, police can go back to the suspect, give Miranda warnings again, and seek to interrogate her further); OR (2) the party being questioned affirmatively invokes her right to counsel (the interrogation cannot resume until the lawyer is present, the suspect reinitiates the interrogation, or 14 days have passed since the suspect was released from custody).
EFFECT OF A MIRANDA VIOLATION
A statement obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, BUT can be admitted to impeach the defendant. Evidence obtained from a voluntary statement taken in violation of Miranda is admissible. Miranda is violated if: (1) the police fail to give Miranda warnings before a custodial interrogation; OR (2) the police fail to cease interrogation of a person after he has affirmatively invoked his right to remain silent or his right to counsel.
EXCEPTIONS TO MIRANDA
The police are NOT required to give Miranda warnings before conducting a custodial interrogation when: (1) the public’s safety is at risk; (2) the suspect being questioned is not aware that the interrogator is a police officer (e.g., undercover police officers); OR (3) the questioning is biographical for routine booking purposes.
HARMLESS ERROR RULE
If evidence in violation of Miranda is admitted at trial, a guilty verdict will be upheld if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless because the defendant would have been convicted even without the tainted evidence.
![Business Associations Bar Review (Partnership): Most Tested Areas of Law on the Bar Exam [PREVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/akTm6LCzbRo/mqdefault.jpg)
I achieved 17 out of 26 credits in a LL.M. in only four months (the regular program is for 12 months) just by watching Michael's videos only once. I didn't feel prepared but the information stuck which was what mattered to my professors. I can't wait to learn more for the Bar exam. Thank you, Studicata!
my score was below average, after watching your videos, I had one of the top scores. Awesome job.
Thank you! Excellent work 👏.
My prof is not the most thorough when it comes to online lectures, and this all has helped me so much. Thank you!!
Your videos are absolutely amazing!! Thank you so much
Very clear! I really like your videos!Thanks for sharing!
No problem, happy to share them!
Excellent . Thanks .. Good work
I watched all the videos related to criminal procedure from this guy, all were really great & I just wonder how few people could dislike them? :) Of course I respect opposite opinions. ;)
Michael I love you I honestly do! I You are the best when it comes to summarizing and organizing the big picture of the most complicated law subjects. Anyway to get you to minimize bouncing back and forth? I had a brain tumor and my peripheral vision is off so it really messes with me to the point I have to move your beautiful face off the screen to avoid migraines. No matter what I will keep coming back for more and keep sending students to your site!!
Man, you are a blessing.
Great explanation, thanks.
🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap
Great stuff. You're very knowledgeable
Thank you for the support!
What if the last line of the Miranda rights was not read before questioning
What is the difference between 5th amendment violation and miranda violation? Isn’t miranda violation 5th amendment violation? I am little confused about the evidence admissibility differences between the 5th amendment and miranda violations. It would be great if you could clarify that little more detail. Thank you.
Difference Between the Fifth Amendment and Miranda: there is a difference between the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Miranda doctrine, rules or warnings. The former protects against the use of compelled statements in judicial, administrative and congressional proceedings as well as before other investigative bodies. The latter contains specific rules governing in-custody interrogations. Miranda is required by and enforced under the Fifth Amendment, but is only part of it. The Fifth Amendment is broader than Miranda, as the Amendment is also the basis for the right of a defendant or witness not to testify as well as other constitutional mandates, and both differ from the Sixth Amendment.
In a 2004 case, United States v. Patane, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the "physical fruits" of statements coming after Miranda violations are typically admissible. If the police are supposed to-but don't-provide the Miranda warnings, and the suspect says something that leads them to physical evidence, that evidence normally doesn't have to be suppressed. (542 U.S. 630 (2004).)
How about when the suspect was taken/arrested/handcuffed w/o "probable cause" & not merandarized just because somebody called firsr & put complaint on tgr susoect is that violation of 4th & 5th amendment of the suspect's bill of rights?' When should the " Miranda Doctrinr" & police interogation should begin ? w/o violating 4th & 5th amendment right?
Whem should Miranda start ? Unnder arrest/habdcuffed/ in custidy or prior arrrst /handcuffed?
How can the Police do arrest/handcuff /detain/booked a suspect w/o first /nterview/investigation/ascertsinment of probable cause w/o miranda and then mirandarized suspect after custody & then did merandarized later w/o violating 4th & 5th amendment and the justification/reason was because there was first complaint against the suspect tge reason given for the arrest /handcuffed? (How sbout the issue ot harrashment & vendetta)?
The Policel dobt have that determination whether to r🎉elease or not tge suspect they booked/charged tge suspect and leave tge determination of probable cause to the DOJ & Court & put suspect under bail or not (depends on allege offense/crime committed/fabricated)
Not true. Ive seem again and again they continue to try and question
So evidence acquired after a violation of Miranda is admissible? Thats weird
Indeed, it is counterintuitive. Derivative evidence obtained as a result of a voluntary statement made in violation of Miranda is generally admissible. The policy here is grounded in the idea that we do not want critical evidence excluded from trial based on what some may consider to be a "technicality" or what the courts consider to be a less severe violation. Notably, it is important to remember that the statements themselves obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible. Here, we're talking about derivative evidence obtained as a result of the voluntary statement made in violation of Miranda.
@@studicata I heard second level protections come in when the defendant ask for his lawyer unequivocally? Am I wrong?
So say you were defending someone who was indeed guilty but the police used "force" at that point even though the police are "good" and the guilty is "bad" its not about right or wrong its about the scientific knowledge behind the law that you are fighting for?