CJ 208 cases test 2

16 terms by ashleycapri 

Create a new folder

Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads

Patracelli cases for test 2

Miranda v AZ

- prosecution cannot use statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless Miranda warnings are issue
- custodial: been deprived of your freedom in some significant way
- interrogation: a person is being questioned about a crime

Mincey v AZ`

a confession must be the product of a person's own free will or rational choice

North Carolina v Butler

Suspect made inculpatory (incriminating remarks leads toward your guilt) vs exculpatory: non incriminating
- there is no need for an explicit written or verbal waiver of Miranda
- Many officers have their suspects sign a waiver

Moran v Burbin

police don't have to act as a messenger service for a criminal suspect (you must ask for a lawyer)
defined conditions of a valid waiver of Miranda (2 conditions in place to hold a valid waiver of miranda)
- has to be voluntary and made without coercion
- has to be a knowing waiver
- criminal suspect has to be aware of the rights and consequences that they are giving up

Tague v LA

When it comers to providing a valid waiver of Miranda it's on the prosecution

Connecticut v Barrett

Conditional waiver of Miranda: if conditions are placed upon the waiver if the police officer makes a reasonable effort to meet those conditions then the conditions are valid

Colorado v Spring

Once you waive Miranda and begin talking to the cops everything you say to them will be used against you

Michigan v Mosley

if there is a significant "cooling off" period between the issuance of Miranda warnings then subsequent inculpatory remarks are valid (cooling off period is about 2 hrs)

Edwards v Arizona

there can be no interrogation after invoking your right to counsel UNLESS the suspect re-initiates contact with the police

Minnick v MS

Once you say you want a lawyer the police can't talk to you unless a lawyer is present or you re-initiate contact

California v Prysock

There is no necessity for verbatim Miranda Warnings, if an officer conveys the substance of Miranda warnings it's ok

Non custodial interactions

traffic stops and terry stops are non custodial interactions

US v. Griffin

Indicia of custody: whether or not they are: free to go, placed under arrest, suspect maintained freedom of movement, suspect initiated contact, suspect agreed to answer questions, and suspect is in a police dominated atmosphere

Road Island v Innis

(interrogation) any words or actions on the part of the police that a reasonable person would think is an attempt to illicit an incriminating response from a suspect

NY v Quarles

When there is a compelling issue of public safety then Miranda Warnings are not required

US v Wade

requiring a suspect to participate in a line up does not violate 5th amendment privileges

Please allow access to your computer’s microphone to use Voice Recording.

Having trouble? Click here for help.

We can’t access your microphone!

Click the icon above to update your browser permissions above and try again

Example:

Reload the page to try again!

Reload

Press Cmd-0 to reset your zoom

Press Ctrl-0 to reset your zoom

It looks like your browser might be zoomed in or out. Your browser needs to be zoomed to a normal size to record audio.

Please upgrade Flash or install Chrome
to use Voice Recording.

For more help, see our troubleshooting page.

Your microphone is muted

For help fixing this issue, see this FAQ.

Star this term

You can study starred terms together

NEW! Voice Recording

Create Set