16 terms

CJ 208 cases test 2

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