Chapter 6
Interrogations and Confessions
• Grounds for excluding confession – not admissible
if it is product of police violation of any of
following requirements
– Free and voluntary rule
– 4th Amendment restrictions on investigatory stops,
arrests and searches
– Miranda safeguards of 5th Amendment privilege against
self incrimination during custodial interrogation
– 6th Amendment right to counsel
Free and Voluntary Rule
• Confessions are not voluntary and will be
suppressed when: 1) an agent of the
government exerts pressure that 2)
overcomes a suspect’s free will and cause
the suspect to make a statement that he
would not otherwise have made.
Due Process Free and Voluntary
Rule
A. Improper pressures exerted by
government
– Physical force or threat of force
– False promises
– Trickery, deceit, or psychological coercion
NOTE: Where deranged man believed that God’s
voice had ordered him to confess, Supreme
Court said confession OK because it was
obtained without improper police conduct
Free and Voluntary, cont’d.
• B. Impact of interrogation methods
– Physical force or threats of force render confession
involuntary as matter of law
– When pressures are less extreme, two other factors
• Suspects susceptibility to pressure
• Interview environment
Arizona v Fulminante
Prosecution has burden of proof and must prove by
preponderance of evidence confession was voluntary
• Factors Considered in Determining Voluntariness :
Beating and torture render confessions involuntary
as matter of law. When pressures are not this
extreme, courts consider totality of circumstances,
with emphasis on:
– The pressure exerted by the police
– The suspect’s degree of susceptibility
– The conditions under which interrogation took place
Fourth Amendment Exclusionary
Rule
• Exclusionary rule requires suppression of
confessions if they are a) causally connected to b)
police violation of suspects 4th Amendment rights
• 4th Amendment violations triggering exclusionary
rule include illegal Terry stops, illegal arrests, and
illegal searches
• Must be causally related to violation of suspects
4th Amendment rights.
th
4 Amendment
violation, cont’d
• Causal connection – courts will look at a) length
of time between the violation and confession and
b) presence of intervening circumstances, e.g
consulting attorney or voluntarily returning to
police station
• Derivative evidence – When confession is tainted
by 4th Amendment violation, the taint carries over
to derivative evidence, Fruit of Poisonous Tree
Doctrine
Overview of Custodial
Interrogation
After suspect in police custody, two
additional requirements
– Prompt arraignment statutes
– Miranda rule
5th Amendment Privilege Against SelfIncrimination During Police Interrogation
Custody + interrogation = Miranda
Miranda Rule imposes three separate duties:
Warn suspect of his 5th Amendment rights
Secure a knowing, intelligent, voluntary
waiver before questioning
Cease interrogation if suspect wants to
remain silent or consult with attorney
Dickerson v United States
• Issue: whether Miranda decision
established a judicially created rule of
evidence forbidding admission of unwarned
confessions or a constitutional right.
• Held, Miranda warning requirement was
constitutionally based and Congress cannot
override it by statute.
Custodial Interrogation Defined
• Custody exists when the objective circumstances
surrounding an encounter would cause a
reasonable person in suspect’s shoes to experience
the situation as an arrest. Factors that might create
arrest-like atmosphere include:
– prolonged questioning, isolated surroundings,
threatening presence of several police, display of
weapons, physical touching, accusatory attitude,
language indicating compliance might be compelled,
handcuffs or physical restraint, telling person he is
prime suspect.
• To be considered “in custody,” suspect must
be aware interrogator is police officer.
Miranda not required for interrogation by
undercover agent or informant.
• However, use of undercover agent or
informant to elicit incriminating statements
from accused after formal charges have
been filed is 6th Amendment violation
• Suspects not in custody during Terry stops,
therefore, no Miranda required. See
Berkemer v McCarty.
• Note: Difference between seizure (when
reasonable person in suspect’s shoes would
not feel free to leave) and custody (whether
reasonable person in suspect’s shoes would
experience encounter as an arrest).
Interrogation Defined
• Includes both express questioning and
functional equivalent. “Functional
equivalent” refers to words or actions on
part of police (other than those normally
attendant to arrest and custody) that police
should know are reasonably likely to elicit
an incriminating response from suspect.
Express Questioning
• Volunteered statements without an interrogation
are admissible despite lack of Miranda
• Miranda not required for routine booking
questions
• Miranda not required before fingerprinting,
photographing, lineups, breathalyzer, bloodalcohol tests, field sobriety tests, etc. These do not
involve custodial interrogations.
Functional Equivalent of Express
Questioning
• Words or actions on part of police that they should
know are reasonably likely to elicit an
incriminating response.
• Rhode Island v Innis – While two officers
transporting Innis to police station after his arrest,
engage in conversation between themselves
concerning missing shotgun. Held, statement not
made in response to interrogation
• Public Safety Exception – Police may delay
Miranda warnings when they are confronted with
an emergency that requires immediate action to
protect public safety or their own safety. Benson v
State – Police ask how much crack he had eaten,
Benson said one rock. Held, public safety
exception applies not only to questions asked out
of objectively reasonable concern for public
safety, but also for objectively reasonable concern
for suspect’s safety.
Procedural Requirements for
Custodial Interrogations:
Miranda Warnings
• You have right to remain silent
• Anything you say can and will be used
against you in court of law
• You have right to consult with attorney and
have attorney present during questioning
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be
appointed for you prior to questioning
Waiver
• After Miranda warnings are given, officer
must obtain a knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary waiver of suspect’s Miranda
rights before questioning may begin.
Cessation of Questioning
• Even after an initial waiver, suspect remains
free to assert right to remain silent or to
speak with an attorney at any point during
the interview. After suspect makes a clear
and unambiguous assertion of either right,
all questioning must cease immediately.
However, police may ignore ambiguous or
equivocal assertion and not required to
clarify.
Resumption of Questioning
• After suspect makes clear and unambiguous
request for attorney, police may not thereafter
question suspect about any offense until counsel is
present unless suspect initiates further
communication.
• After clear and unambiguous assertion of right to
remain silent, police may not question suspect
about the same offense unless suspect initiates
further communication. Police may initiate
questioning about unrelated offense after waiting a
sufficient period of time.
Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
During Interrogations After Formal
Charges are Filed
• Sixth Amendment attaches when adversary
judicial proceedings are formally initiated by way
of preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or
arraignment. Arrest, with or without warrant, does
not trigger 6th Amendment right to counsel.
• Once 6th Amendment has attached, police may not
deliberately elicit incriminating statements from
an accused about the charged offense unless
counsel is present or accused makes a valid
waiver of 6th Amendment right to counsel
• Sixth Amendment right to counsel is
offense-specific. Applies only when police
interrogate accused about the charged
offense; they do not apply when police
interrogate an accused about a separate,
uncharged offense. However, if accused is
in custody when interrogation about
unrelated offense, must be Mirandized.
Accused’s ability to waive Sixth
Amendment right to counsel
1. Once accused has retained or requested
appointed counsel, subsequent waiver given
during police-initiated contact is ineffective.
Michigan v Jackson.
2. Accused who has not yet retained or requested
appointed counsel is capable of making valid 6th
Amendment waiver of right to counsel during
police-initiated contact.
3. No restrictions on ability to waive 6th during
contact accused initiates.
Undercover agents and
informants
• Using undercover agents or informants to
elicit incriminating statements from an
accused after formal charges have been filed
is a violation of Sixth Amendment right to
counsel.
Use of Inadmissible Confessions
for Impeachment
Inadmissible confession may be used for
impeachment if the following conditions are
met:
1. Defendant takes stand to testify on own behalf
2. He tells jurors different story than what he told
police.
3. Confession offered for impeachment was given
voluntarily.
Restrictions on Use of Derivative
Evidence
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requires
suppression of evidence derived from
confessions obtained in violation of due
process free and voluntary requirement,
Fourth Amendment search and seizure
clause, and Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination, and Sixth
Amendment right to counsel will result in
suppression of derivative evidence.
• Evidence derived from confessions obtained
without Miranda warnings, in contrast, is
admissible if the confession was voluntary
and the violation of the Miranda rule was
not deliberate. See Missouri v Seibert.
• Prosecution can’t introduce the unwarned
statement in its case-in-chief, but can admit
derivative evidence discovered as a result of
the statement.
Restrictions on Use of
Confessions Given by
Accomplices
• Defendant lacks standing to object to use of
accomplice’s confession as evidence against
him on grounds that police violated
accomplice’s constitutional rights to obtain
the confession. Only person whose
constitutional rights have been invaded has
standing to object to admission to
confession on grounds that it was obtained
in violation of Constitution.
• Sixth Amendment guarantees that accused
shall have right to confront witnesses
against him. This guarantee precludes the
government from introducing a confession
given by one accomplice implicating
another as evidence against the latter unless
the government can prevail on the
accomplice who made the statement to
appear at trial and testify.
Requirement of Corroboration of
Valid Confession
• Many states impose statutory restriction on
admission of confessions called corpus
deliciti or independent proof requirement.
Prosecution must put on at least some
evidence, independent of the confession,
that the crime confessed was in fact
committed before a confession will be
received into evidence.