Constitutional Law Block 200: Rules of Evidence

Constitutional Law: Rules of Evidence

Scope of the Exclusionary Rule

• The Exclusionary Rule applies to admissions and confessions, ensuring voluntariness in obtaining them.
• The rule's development led to the Miranda v. Arizona decision, which established guidelines for law enforcement interrogation.

Objectives

Voluntariness

• Voluntariness is the overriding procedural requirement for obtaining admissions and confessions.
• English Common Law initially had no restrictions on confession extraction methods, including coercion and torture.
• The English began to consider the voluntariness of confessions in the 1700s, leading to the development of the US standard.

US History of Law: Voluntariness Rule

• In Bram v. United States (1897), the court held that a confession obtained by improper influence is not voluntary.
• The Brown v. Mississippi (1936) case established that the due process clause requires state action to be consistent with fundamental principles of liberty and justice.
• The Ashcroft v. Tennessee (1944) case emphasized the importance of voluntariness in confessions obtained through prolonged interrogation.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• The Miranda case established that no confession is admissible under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments unless a suspect has been made aware of their rights and has waived them.
• The Miranda warning is a verbal or written advisement of the Fifth Amendment guaranteed right to not be compelled to give evidence against oneself.
• The warning must be given in all cases where a person in custody is about to be interrogated.
• The Miranda Equation requires both custody and interrogation for the warning to apply.

Custody and Interrogation

• Custody exists if a reasonable person believes they are not free to leave or refuse to answer questions.
• The demeanour of the officer, location, and surroundings can affect the need for a Miranda warning.
• Interrogation includes any statement or action intended to elicit incriminating statements.

Giving a Miranda Warning

• The prosecution must prove the Miranda warning was given.
• A written waiver is not legally necessary, but it is evidence of the reading of the warning and subsequent voluntary waiver.
• Special care must be taken when dealing with juveniles, inexperienced individuals, and those with apparent sub-standard intelligence.

Issues Affecting the Validity of the Waiver of Rights

• Juveniles should not be given Miranda warnings by patrol officers.

• Care must be taken when dealing with individuals who are intoxicated, mentally retarded, or demented.

• Everyone who is to be custodially interrogated should have their Miranda Rights read to them, including those who could be expected to know their rights.### Interrogation and Miranda Warnings

• If a suspect cannot or will not understand the Miranda warning, ask what they don't understand and explain or re-read the rights in a simplified manner. If they still don't understand, treat this response as a refusal to talk.

Interrogation Session

• If the suspect responds negatively, end the interrogation session and return them to their cell or next location. Under certain circumstances, you can ask later if they've reconsidered and want to talk.

Written Waiver and Tacit Waiver

• There is no legal requirement for a written waiver. If the suspect refuses to sign but is willing to talk, note this on the form and have it witnessed by someone present in the interrogation session and/or by recording.
• There is no such thing as a tacit waiver; a waiver of rights must be overt.

Starting Interrogation

• If the suspect starts talking immediately after the warning, stop them and ensure they understand their rights. If they understand, assume that starting to make a statement is the same as a waiver.
• If unsure about the waiver, ask clarifying questions, but do not begin interrogation until you are sure of the waiver.

Changing Mind and Waiver

• The suspect can change their mind at any time during the process. If they switch from refusal to talk or requesting an attorney to agreeing to speak, the waiver must be carefully documented.
• This is especially important if the original response was a request for an attorney, as you must prove the waiver was initiated by the suspect.

Repeating Miranda Warning

• Repeat the Miranda warning anytime there is a significant passage of time between sessions, a change in personnel conducting the interrogation, or a change in location. Changing the topic of interrogation does not require a repeat of the warning.

Two-Part Interrogation Technique

• The two-part interrogation technique, which involves "warming-up" the suspect with guilt-seeking questions before reading Miranda, is unconstitutional and a violation of a suspect's Constitutional rights.

Invoking Right to an Attorney

• If a suspect invokes their right to an attorney in custody, they cannot be reapproached for questioning until they have been released from custody and a 14-day waiting period has passed.

Edwards v. Arizona and Minnick v. Mississippi

• A suspect who has invoked their right to an attorney in custody can be reapproached, Mirandized, and interrogated only after they have been released from custody and the 14-day waiting period has passed.

Maryland v. Shatzer

• The 14-day waiting period applies after release from custody, but it is unclear if it applies to non-custodial interrogation or to all officers, crimes, and jurisdictions.

Interrogation of Protected Defendants

• Once a suspect becomes a defendant, they have a Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney present at all significant points of the criminal proceedings.