 Admissions
Confessions
and
Admissions and Confessions
Generally

Under the FRE, any statement made by a party is
an admission and can be used in evidence against
him or her as long as the statement is relevant to
the case.

Admissions cover a broad category of evidence.

An admission presents no hearsay problems,
because admissions are exempt from the hearsay
rule.
Admissions:
More Than Mere Words

Admissions are not
limited to verbal
statements made by a
party—they can be
inferred from a
person's demeanor,
conduct and acts, or
even silence.
Statements in the Criminal Trial


Statements made before trial by criminal
defendants are also admissions and can be used as
evidence at trial.
However, a defendant's statement made while in
police custody is inadmissible unless the
prosecution proves that the statement was made
voluntarily and specific rights (Miranda and Sixth
Amendment right to counsel) were waived before
the statement was made.
Confessions


A defendant's statement is
a confession when the
statement is a conscious
acknowledgment of guilt
(all the elements of a
crime) by an accused.
Both admissions and
confessions must be
voluntarily given to be
admissible against an
accused in a criminal case.
What is a confession?
Defined as a voluntary statement made by a
person charged with the commission of a
crime communicated to another person,
wherein s/he acknowledges to be guilty of
the offense charged.
 (Discloses the circumstances of the act or
the share and participation s/he had in it.)

Confessions and Admissions

Confessions and
admissions frequently
overlap and it is
sometimes difficult to
decide if a statement is
an admission or a
confession.
The Distinction Between a
Confession and an Admission
According to one court:
 A confession is an admission of the crime
itself.
 An admission concerns only some specific
fact which, in turn, tends to establish guilt
or some element of the offense.
Law Enforcement and
Admissions and Confessions

For purposes of the law
enforcement officer's
understanding, the most
important fact is that
both admissions and
confessions must be
voluntarily made in
order to be used in
court against a person
accused of a crime.
Law of Evidence vs.
Constitutional Law

The law of evidence is
not nearly as important
in deciding the
admissibility of
admissions and
confessions as is
constitutional law.
United States Supreme Court:
Imposed Requirements on Law
Enforcement Officers

The United States
Supreme Court has
imposed requirements on
law enforcement officers
in connection with
admissions and
confessions stemming
from Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth
Amendments.
Admissions



Statements or acts by an accused before trial that
are not an acknowledgment of guilt, but do link
the accused with a crime or are in some way
incriminating, are admissions.
The accused need not intend to incriminate himself
or herself for the statement or act - to be an
admission.
An admission may be a simple acknowledgment
of being at the crime scene, of being acquainted
with the victim of a crime, or even a denial that the
defendant was at the scene.



Any statement or act could become incriminating once
coupled with other evidence.
For example, assume an officer arrests the accused and
states to her: “You are under arrest for robbery,” and the
accused responds: “I was out of town yesterday
afternoon.”
Since the officer said nothing about the place and date of
the robbery, the accused's response discloses peculiar
knowledge that only the perpetrator of the crime would
know and constitutes a “false denial” and is admissible
against the accused on a theory of consciousness of guilt.
Acts as Admissions


Acts are also classified as a
form of admission if they
are inconsistent with an
accused's innocence.
Thus, acts such as trying to
escape detection and
arrest, or to hide a crime,
are admissions and may be
introduced against the
accused at a trial.
Admission by Silence or
Accusatory Statements
The defendant's silence in circumstances
where a person would normally speak out
may be an admission.
 Whether or not this silence may be
introduced as an admission of guilt depends
upon the conditions under which the silence
occurred.

Implied Admission of Guilt or
Adoptive Admission

If a person makes a
statement in front of
another, accusing him or
her of committing a crime
and no reply or denial is
made, this is considered to
be an implied admission
of guilt or adoptive
admission.
Statements by an Accused While
in Police Custody
A statement made by a person while in
police custody is usually not an adoptive
admission because a person in custody is
not required to say anything.
 Even if a suspect is not in custody, just
being in the presence of officers and under
suspicion is enough to cause a reasonable
person to remain silent in the face of an
accusation.

Confessions: General Principles
and Considerations


Throughout human
history, statements have
been coerced from people
by a variety of means that
are unacceptable today.
For this reason,
admissions and
confessions are often
subjected to “strict
scrutiny.”
U.S. Supreme Court and
Confessions

In the twentieth century,
the United States
Supreme Court
developed the
exclusionary rule and
continues to develop
complex and strict rules
pertaining to the
admissibility of
confessions in evidence.
Development of the Free and
Voluntary Rule

History has revealed
many confessions used
in the past to convict
persons were coerced
through various forms
of torture, such as the
rack and screw or the
application of red-hot
irons to bare flesh.
Development of the Free and
Voluntary Rule

Today: “WaterBoarding”
Free and Voluntary Confessions


For a confession to have been freely and
voluntarily made, the person making the
confession must have been in a position to
exercise complete mental freedom at the time the
confession was made.
The courts have been strict in their interpretation
of what will affect this “complete mental freedom”
and have ruled that pressure applied to induce a
confession will be considered as an interference
with mental freedom and cause the confession to
be excluded from evidence at trial.



At first, courts were primarily concerned with
whether the confessor had been subjected to any
physical abuse to induce the confession.
Later, the courts came to recognize that other
things might affect freedom of the mind, such as
psychological pressures upon the accused before
or during interrogation.
Psychological pressure has been interpreted as any
act or statement that may place the accused under
a mental strain, such as a threat of violence, a
threat of action to be taken against members of the
accused's family, extreme deception, promise of
reward, or duress.
The Test for Freely and Voluntarily



The requirement that the confession must be
given freely and voluntarily satisfies two
concerns of modern jurisprudence.
First, unless the confession is so given, there
may be a doubt about the fundamental fairness
of its use at trial against the accused; and
Second, unless it is given freely and
voluntarily, the accused’s right against selfincrimination may be violated.
Development of Additional
Requirements: McNabb-Mallory Rule

First, the high Court, developed a per se rule,
applicable only in the federal courts. This rule
excluded potentially coerced confessions, by
addressing the practice of detaining arrested
persons in isolation for an extended period of time.

Admissibility did not depend on whether the
confession was voluntary, but was based on
whether an arrested suspect was brought before a
committing magistrate for arraignment “without
unnecessary delay” following the suspect's arrest.
Development of Additional
Requirements
The U.S. Supreme Court also extended the
basis for a finding of a coerced confession,
from threatened and actual physical
coercion to psychological coercion as well.
 In 1944, in Ashcraft v. Tennessee, the Court
held that 36 hours of continuous
interrogation alone was enough to render
the accused's confession coerced.

Escobedo v. Illinois

In 1964, in Escobedo
v. Illinois, the
Supreme Court found
that a police
interrogation of a
suspect violated the
Sixth Amendment
right to counsel.
Massiah v. United States

Also in 1964, the Court
held in Massiah v. United
States that police
interrogation (deliberate
elicitation) of an indicted
person in the absence of
an attorney (or waiver by
the accused) is a violation
of the Sixth Amendment's
right to counsel.
Free and Voluntary Rule

Under the free and
voluntary rule,
each case required
a factual
assessment of the
accused's claim
that his or her
confession was
coerced.
Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda requires the police to warn a
suspect in custody :

of his or her right to remain silent;
that anything the suspect says might be used in
court against the suspect;
that the suspect has the right to have counsel
present during questioning; and
that counsel will be appointed for the suspect if the
suspect cannot afford counsel.



Violation of Miranda

In the absence of these
Miranda warnings and a
waiver of the rights to
remain silent and to
counsel during police
interrogation, any
statement obtained by the
police cannot be used
against the accused at
trial, even if the
statement is not coerced.
Confessions Excluded Due to
Violation of Due Process of Law:
Coerced Confessions


A coerced confession
could be unreliable!
Even if the confession
is reliable, it should be
excluded from
evidence because the
police should “obey
the law while
enforcing the law.”
The Totality of the Circumstances

The test for voluntariness, according to the
Supreme Court of the United States, is the
totality of the circumstances.
Brown v. Mississippi



The three defendants had been whipped by local
law enforcement authorities until they confessed.
During the trial, the confessions were admitted
before the manner in which they were obtained
was brought out.
The case was taken to the Supreme Court of the
United States, where it was argued that, by the
introduction of these confessions, the defendants
had been denied due process of law.

Not only will actual physical mistreatment of the
accused cause a confession to be excluded, but
extreme discomfort suffered by the accused during the
interrogation might also cause statements made to be
inadmissible.

Even lengthy, uninterrupted questioning, without
providing food, rest, or bathroom use, could be
sufficient grounds for a court to exclude a statement
from trial as involuntary.
Confessions Coerced by
Psychological Pressure
Overcoming the will of a suspect can be
achieved just as effectively by application
of psychological pressure as it can by
application of physical force.
 Psychological pressure, or “mental stress,”
takes many forms.




It may result from a mere suggestion that if the
accused will confess, “things will go easier for
him or her.”
It may be some other promise or reward, such as a
promise that no action will be taken against the
accused’s spouse; or that every effort will be made
to assist the family of the accused to get welfare
aid if the confession is given.
The mental stress may be created by a threat of
action to be taken against the family of the
accused, such as taking his or her children and
placing them with social services unless a
confession is forthcoming.
Spano v. New York

The confession was obtained in violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
based on a totality of the circumstances,
particularly relying on four factors:

the official pressure from a barrage of questioning by
several different officers;
the effect of denying Spano's requests to speak with his
attorney;
the fatigue resulting from the interrogation's length and
time of night; and
the sympathy falsely created by an Officer.



Exclusion of Confessions Due to Violation
of Rights Secured under Miranda v. Arizona

Perhaps no legal decision is
more widely known by
people in all walks of life
than Miranda v. Arizona—
the case that imposed the
requirement that police give
warnings to criminal
suspects of their rights to
remain silent and to have an
attorney present during
questioning.
The Miranda Rule


The Miranda rule requires that a law enforcement
officer “read” Miranda warnings to a suspect
before custodial interrogation.
The officer must advise the suspect that the
suspect has the right to remain silent, that anything
the suspect says can and will be used against the
suspect at trial, that the suspect has a right to an
attorney being present during questioning, and that
if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, one can be
provided at no cost to the suspect.
Police Departments Issued Credit
Card-Sized Miranda Cards

Most police departments
issue credit card-sized
Miranda cards that list
the rights that must be
read to and waived by
the suspect before
questioning may begin.
Translators Should Administer Warnings
in the Language Other Than English

In those situations
where the officer is
faced with a suspect
who either does not
speak English or
where English is a
second language, a
different problem is
presented.



Today, the Miranda requirements apply to
custodial interrogations of suspects by law
enforcement officers.
When an officer has a suspect in custody and
engages in interrogation, the officer must
inform the suspect of his or her Miranda
rights, and the officer should not interrogate
the suspect unless he or she waives those
rights.
* If the suspect invokes his or her rights at any
time, the officer must cease interrogation and
scrupulously honor the rights the suspect
asserts.
Relevant Topics for Discussion
Relating to the Miranda Rules






What is custody for purposes of Miranda?
What is interrogation for purposes of Miranda?
What constitutes a valid waiver of Miranda rights?
What constitutes a valid waiver after a suspect has
asserted his or her rights?
What is the effect of the exclusionary rule on
statements taken in violation of Miranda?
What are exceptions to the Miranda rule?
What Constitutes Custody for
Purposes of Miranda?
Custody results when a police officer
restrains a person in such a way consistent
with formal arrest, regardless of the
situation or intent of the officer.
 Anytime a person is taken into custody, the
officer is required to give Miranda warnings
if to be interviewed / questioned.

Custody + Questioning =
Miranda Waiver
The Supreme Court’s Concern
In Miranda itself, the U.S. Supreme Court
talked about its concern with the coercive
atmosphere of the police station.
 However, the coercive atmosphere could
exist anywhere; and, the fact that a
suspect is questioned in a police station,
does not necessarily mean that he or she is
in custody for purposes of Miranda.

What Constitutes Interrogation
for Purposes of Miranda?

When an officer has a
suspect in custody and
specifically asks him
or her direct questions
about the incident
under investigation,
the officer is engaged
in interrogation
within the meaning of
the Miranda rule.
An Important Definition


The Supreme Court stated that interrogation as
used in Miranda refers to “either express
questioning or its functional equivalent.”
Furthermore, the Court defined “functional
equivalent” as “any words or actions on the
part of the police (other than those normally
attendant to arrest and custody) that the police
should know are reasonably likely to elicit an
incriminating response from the suspect.”
What Constitutes a Valid Waiver
of Miranda Rights?

In the Miranda decision,
the Supreme Court stated
that the prosecution has a
“heavy burden” of proof
that any claimed waiver of
rights by an accused was
made voluntarily,
knowingly, and
intelligently.
What Constitutes a Valid Waiver After a
Suspect Asserts His or Her Rights?
The Court stated that if a suspect, prior to or
during interrogation, indicates in any
manner that “he wishes to remain silent,
the interrogation must cease.” * * *
 Likewise, the Court said that if an
individual says that “he wants an attorney,
the interrogation must cease until an
attorney is present.” * * *

Exceptions to the Miranda Rule
 Public
safety exception
 Routine
booking questions exception
 Undercover
exception
police questioner
New York v. Quarles
 The
public safety exception holds that
Miranda should not apply to a situation
in which police officers ask questions
reasonably prompted by a concern for
the public safety. (i.e Where is the
weapon?)
Pennsylvania v. Muniz

The Justices concluded that questions posed
to an arrestee during booking, such as those
relating to name, address, weight, eye color,
date of birth, and age are within a “routine
booking question” exception, “which
exempts from Miranda's coverage questions
to secure the ‘biographical data necessary to
complete booking or pretrial services.’”
Illinois v. Perkins


The Court held that “an undercover law
enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate
need not give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated
suspect before asking questions that may elicit an
incriminating response.”
The Court said that “ploys to mislead a suspect or
lull him into a false sense of security that do not
rise to the level of compulsion or coercion to
speak are not within Miranda's concerns.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Revisited

When there is a
violation of a
defendant's
constitutional rights, in
addition to the direct
fruit of the violation
being inadmissible, any
evidence derived from
the violation is also
inadmissible under the
“fruit of the poisonous
tree” doctrine.
What “the fruit of the poisonous
tree” means.
The theory of the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine is that if the root of the tree is
poisoned, the fruit of the tree is also
poisoned.
 It is important to note that the case may be
dropped if, without the inadmissible
evidence, the case against the accused is
insufficient to support a conviction.

Not everything is inadmissible




The U.S. Supreme Court has created an
impeachment exception to the rule that excludes
statements taken by the police in violation of
Miranda.
If a defendant:
takes the witness stand, and
testifies untruthfully (inconsistent statement) ,
the prosecutor can use a statement obtained in
violation of Miranda to impeach the
defendant's testimony.
Massiah v. United States

The U.S. Supreme
Court used the
“exclusionary rule”
as a means of
discouraging police
misconduct in
obtaining suspects’
incriminating
statements.
When the Right to
Counsel Rule Applies

The Supreme Court of the
United States has held that the
right attaches only at a critical
stage of a prosecution, which
means when adversarial
judicial proceedings have been
initiated, “whether by way of
formal charge, preliminary
hearing, indictment,
information, or arraignment.”
When and How an Officer Can Communicate
With an Accused After the Right Attaches

Once an accused has retained the services of
an attorney or after adversary judicial
proceedings have been initiated, any attempt
by a law enforcement officer to deliberately
elicit incriminating information will violate
the right to counsel.
An Aberration in Law:
Clear Cut Rules
Should the accused request counsel, then
questioning must stop.
 If an attorney has been hired or appointed,
but the accused has not yet consulted with
the attorney, caution dictates that no
communication be initiated by law
enforcement with the accused without
counsel being present.

How an Accused Can Waive the
Right to Counsel

A waiver of the right to counsel is possible
in all situations where the accused is
informed of the right and makes a
voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver
of that right.
Confession Given After an Unlawful Search
and Seizure May Be Excluded
The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine both apply to the
products of an unlawful search or seizure.
 Therefore, if a person, subjected to an
unlawful search and seizure, makes
incriminating statements, those statements
are inadmissible under the exclusionary
rule.

The Continued Importance of
Confessions as Evidence


There are many technical rules that limit the
admissibility into evidence of incriminating
statements.
 Nonetheless, such statements remain a critical
weapon in law enforcement's arsenal in the war
on crime.
In fact, the Miranda Court specifically pointed out
that “confessions remain a proper element in law
enforcement,” and confessions continue to play a
major role in law enforcement.
Wording of Confessions
 There
is no
prescribed
wording for a
statement or a
confession.
Obtaining Confessions
There
is no requirement that a confession be
written, but from an evidentiary standpoint, it is
preferable that it be written and signed by the
accused.
It
is also advisable to either audio- or videotape the
process leading up to the confession, as well as the
confession itself.
A Sample Preamble
“I, (the name of the accused), make this voluntary
statement to officer (name of officer or officers
conducting the interrogation). I make this statement
without threats or promises being made to me. I
have been advised of my right to remain silent. I
have also been advised of my right to consult an
attorney, and to have that attorney present during
the time that I am being questioned by the officer.
A Sample Preamble
I was also advised that if I could not afford an
attorney, one would be provided for me free of
charge. I was advised that if I did say anything, it
could be used against me in court. I wish to state that
I understand my right to remain silent and my right
to an attorney, but I waive these rights and wish to
make the following statements to (officer's name).”
The Confession

May be in question-and-answer form which is
better as it more truly reflects exact statements of
the accused.

May be a narrative form of statement which is a
summary of the facts as related by the accused
which has the difficulty that it is frequently in the
words of the officer, not the accused.
Concluding the Confession

A statement, in the accused’s own handwriting, is
suggested to conclude the confession.

Sample: “I have read the following statement
consisting of (number) pages, and it is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.”
Proof of the Crime in
Addition to a Confession
The Requirement of Corpus Delicti
It is generally conceded in the United
States that a person cannot be convicted of
a crime upon a confession alone.
 There must be some proof of the crime in
addition to the acknowledgment of guilt
by the accused, some outside proof of the
corpus delicti, that is, proof that a crime
has been committed.


The reason for the rule requiring
additional proof of a crime
beyond a confession is deeply
ingrained in Anglo-American
jurisprudence.

The best interests of justice
demand that we not convict
persons who may be innocent of
the crime.

Not infrequently, people who
suffer from mental instability
confess to imaginary crimes, or to
real crimes for which the unstable
person is not responsible.

For reasons of their own, people
confess to crimes committed by
others.