Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
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.
(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
(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.