CLP 6 PDF

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona Overview of the Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination: ○ Individuals cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in criminal cases ("pleading the Fifth"). ○ Protects against being forced to make state...

Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona Overview of the Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination: ○ Individuals cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in criminal cases ("pleading the Fifth"). ○ Protects against being forced to make statements that could be used to prove guilt. Double Jeopardy Clause: ○ Prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same offense after acquittal or conviction. Due Process Clause: ○ Guarantees fair procedures before the government can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. ○ Includes the right to notice and a fair hearing. Grand Jury Requirement: ○ Serious federal crimes must be charged by a grand jury indictment. ○ Ensures an independent body reviews evidence before prosecution. It applies to both federal and state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 5th Amendment Overview Protects against self-incrimination and ensures due process. Key Protections: Right to remain silent. Protection from compelled confessions. Right to legal counsel during police interrogations. 5th Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Key Components of Miranda Rights Right to Remain Silent: Suspects must be informed that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say can be used against them in court. Right to an Attorney: Suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and to have one appointed if they cannot afford one. Waiver: The suspect must voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive these rights for any statements made during interrogation to be admissible in court. When Miranda Applies: Custodial Interrogation: Miranda rights are required when a suspect is both in custody (not free to leave) and subjected to questioning by law enforcement. Exclusions: Routine booking questions, public safety exceptions, and volunteered statements not made in response to interrogation do not require Miranda warnings. Before Miranda: Voluntary Confessions Voluntary Confession: Confessions must be made freely and without coercion. Legal Standard: Courts examine whether the confession was made voluntarily, based on the "totality of circumstances." Confession: a person says s/he committed the act. Admission: a person admits to something related to the act but may not have committed it. Coercion and Brutality - Confession Not Valid Coercion: Use of physical force, threats, or undue pressure by law enforcement. Brutality: Confessions obtained through violence or physical abuse are inadmissible. Case Examples: Brown v. Mississippi (1936) - Confessions extracted by torture were ruled unconstitutional. Deception - Confession Not Valid Deception: Police using trickery, false promises, or lies to elicit a confession. -Deception that overbears the suspect’s will renders the confession invalid. -Courts analyze whether the deception was so severe that it compromised the voluntariness of the confession. Confession Not Voluntary - Confession Not Valid Factors Influencing Voluntariness: Mental state of the suspect. Length and nature of interrogation. Presence or absence of legal counsel. A confession made under extreme psychological pressure is not valid. Suspect Denied Counsel at the Police Station - Confession Not Valid Right to Counsel: The 6th Amendment right to counsel extends to police interrogations. Impact: Denying access to an attorney during questioning can invalidate a confession. Notable Case: Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - Confession inadmissible if suspect is denied counsel. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) Escobedo was arrested on suspicion of murder and taken into police custody for questioning. During the interrogation, Escobedo repeatedly asked to speak with his attorney, who was present at the police station and also requested to see his client. The police denied these requests, and Escobedo was not informed of his right to remain silent. After hours of interrogation, Escobedo made statements that were used to convict him of murder. Issue: Whether Escobedo's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when the police refused his request to consult with his lawyer during interrogation? Yes.The Court ruled that when the investigation shifts from a general inquiry to a focused interrogation of a suspect, and the suspect requests an attorney, the denial of this request violates the Sixth Amendment. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) Right to Counsel: This case emphasizes the importance of the right to counsel during critical stages of the criminal process, particularly during police interrogations. Accusatory Stage: The Court recognized that once the police interrogation becomes accusatory, the suspect’s right to counsel must be respected. Inadmissible Confession: Statements obtained in violation of this right cannot be used against the suspect in court. Escobedo played a pivotal role in strengthening the procedural safeguards for suspects in custody, laying the groundwork for the landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona. It underscored the necessity of allowing suspects access to counsel during interrogations to prevent self-incrimination and protect their constitutional rights. Miranda Rejects Voluntariness as the Sole Test 1. Were Miranda warnings given? 2. If they were given, was there a waiver? 3. If there was a waiver, was it intelligent and voluntary? Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda was arrested in Arizona, and interrogated by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda was not informed of his rights to remain silent or to have an attorney present. He confessed to the crimes, and his written confession was used as evidence at trial, where he was convicted. Issue: Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? Yes, the Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination applies in all settings, including police custodial interrogations. The Court established that without proper safeguards, such as informing the suspect of their right to remain silent and the right to counsel, any statement made by the suspect during an interrogation may not be used against them in court. Importance of Miranda v. Arizona Impact on Law Enforcement: Required procedures for interrogations. Increased emphasis on protecting suspects’ rights. Basics of Miranda v. Arizona Miranda Warnings: Law enforcement must inform suspects of: 1. Their right to remain silent. 2. That anything they say can be used against them in court. 3. Their right to an attorney. 4. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them. Impact: This ruling ensures that suspects are aware of their constitutional rights and protects them from self-incrimination during police interrogations. Miranda Required by the Constitution Miranda rights are mandated by the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination. Court’s Role: The Miranda warnings are not just procedural safeguards created by judges; they are rooted in constitutional requirements to ensure a fair legal process. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) Dickerson was indicted on charges related to a bank robbery. Before trial, he moved to suppress statements made to the FBI, arguing he had not been read his Miranda rights.The trial court suppressed some statements but allowed others, leading to an appeal. Issue: Does a federal statute which permits the admission of voluntary confessions without Miranda warnings, overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona? No. The Court held that Miranda was a constitutional decision that could not be overruled by Congress through legislation. The Court reaffirmed that Miranda warnings are constitutionally required and not simply court-created procedural safeguards. Miranda Must Be Given for All Offenses, Except Routine Traffic Stops General Rule: Miranda warnings must be administered for all offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors, if the suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation. Exception: Routine traffic stops do not require Miranda warnings because they are typically brief, non-custodial encounters. Rationale: The non-coercive nature of a typical traffic stop means it doesn't trigger the same concerns about self-incrimination. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) McCarty was stopped by an Ohio state trooper for weaving between lanes. During the stop, the trooper asked McCarty if he had been drinking, and McCarty admitted to consuming alcohol and marijuana. The trooper conducted a field sobriety test, which McCarty failed. He was arrested and taken to jail, where he was further questioned without receiving Miranda warnings and made additional incriminating statements. Issue: Does the Fifth Amendment require that Miranda warnings be given to individuals subjected to questioning during a traffic stop or before being questioned at the police station? No. The Court held that Miranda warnings are not required during routine traffic stops because such stops are not considered "custodial interrogation." However, once an individual is formally arrested, Miranda warnings are necessary before questioning. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) Traffic Stops Are Not Custodial: The Court reasoned that a routine traffic stop is a temporary and brief interaction similar to a Terry stop, which is non-custodial. The atmosphere is generally public and less coercive than formal police custody. Miranda Applies Post-Arrest: While roadside questioning does not require Miranda warnings, the Court emphasized that once a suspect is formally arrested, the situation changes. At that point, any subsequent questioning must be preceded by Miranda warnings to ensure that the suspect is aware of their rights. Purpose of Miranda: Miranda aims to protect individuals from the coercive pressures of custody. Because traffic stops are usually brief and public, they do not present the same coercive environment as a police station or interrogation room. Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9 (1988) Bruder was stopped by police for suspected drunk driving. During the traffic stop, the officer questioned Bruder about his drinking and asked him to perform field sobriety tests.Bruder made incriminating statements during this interaction. The police did not provide Miranda warnings before questioning Bruder. Bruder was subsequently arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI). Issue: Was the roadside questioning of Bruder during a routine traffic stop a "custodial interrogation" requiring Miranda warnings? No, The Court held that routine roadside questioning during a traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation," and thus, Miranda warnings were not required. The Court explained that a routine traffic stop is more akin to a brief and temporary detention rather than a formal arrest. The nature of a traffic stop does not inherently place the suspect in a coercive environment that Miranda aims to protect against. Distinguishing Miranda from the Right to Counsel Miranda Rights: Focus primarily on protecting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during police interrogations. Right to Counsel: Stems from the Sixth Amendment and pertains to legal representation during criminal prosecutions. Key Difference: Miranda warnings must be given during custodial interrogation, while the right to counsel attaches when formal criminal proceedings begin. Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) Massiah was indicted on drug charges and released on bail. Without Massiah’s knowledge, a co-defendant, cooperating with police, recorded a conversation between them in which Massiah made incriminating statements. Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel prohibit the government from deliberately eliciting incriminating statements from a defendant after formal charges have been filed without counsel present? Yes, the Sixth Amendment prohibits law enforcement from deliberately eliciting statements from a defendant without their lawyer present after formal charges are filed. The defendant’s right to counsel is violated when authorities intentionally circumvent it by using a co-defendant to obtain incriminating statements post-indictment. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980) Henry, in federal custody, was housed in a cell with a paid government informant. The informant was instructed not to question Henry but engaged in conversations and elicited incriminating statements. Issue: Does the use of a paid informant to elicit information from an indicted defendant in custody violate the Sixth Amendment? Yes, using a paid informant to deliberately elicit statements from a defendant who has been indicted and is in custody violates the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that the informant’s actions, even if indirectly encouraged by authorities, constituted deliberate elicitation of information, infringing on the defendant's right to counsel. Key Takeaways Right to Counsel: Both cases underscore that once formal charges are filed, the right to counsel is crucial, and authorities cannot deliberately elicit statements without counsel present. Deliberate Elicitation: Any tactic where the government intentionally obtains statements through informants or other indirect means violates the Sixth Amendment. Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 (2004) Fellers was indicted on drug conspiracy charges. Officers visited his home without a warrant, informed him of the indictment, and questioned him without advising him of his rights or providing counsel. Fellers made incriminating statements during this encounter. Later, at the police station, after being Mirandized, Fellers repeated his earlier statements. Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel prohibit the admission of statements made to police at home without counsel after indictment, even if similar statements were later made after Miranda warnings? Yes, the initial questioning of Fellers violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and this violation tainted the subsequent statements made at the police station. The Court ruled that the officers deliberately elicited information from Fellers without his attorney present after indictment, violating his Sixth Amendment rights. The Court emphasized that a subsequent Miranda warning does not erase the impact of an earlier Sixth Amendment violation. Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Focus: Protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves during criminal proceedings. Application: Triggered during custodial interrogation. Prevents coerced confessions and requires Miranda warnings before questioning. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Focus: Guarantees the right to legal representation during "critical stages" of prosecution after formal charges are filed. Application: Applies post-indictment, regardless of custody status. Protects against deliberate elicitation of information by law enforcement. Key Differences in Interrogation Contexts Miranda & 5th Amendment: Applies during custodial interrogation, primarily focusing on self-incrimination. Warnings must be given before questioning to inform the suspect of their rights. 6th Amendment Right to Counsel: Applies post-indictment during any police questioning intended to elicit information. Protects the right to legal assistance during interactions with law enforcement. Confessions & Admissions Miranda (5th Amendment): Any statement made without Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation is inadmissible. 6th Amendment Right to Counsel: Statements obtained post-indictment without counsel are inadmissible if deliberately elicited. Even if Mirandized later, earlier violations can taint subsequent confessions. When Is the Suspect in Custody? A suspect is considered "in custody" when they are formally arrested or when they deprived of freedom in a significant way. Custodial interrogation: an interrogation that takes place while a suspect is in custody. Factors Considered: Location of questioning, duration, presence of law enforcement, and whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. Key Case: Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) clarified that traffic stops are generally not considered custodial for Miranda purposes. When Is the Suspect in Custody? Questioning at the police station- requires Miranda warnings due to the coercive atmosphere to the interrogation. ○ Exception: 1) the suspect goes to the station on his own and knows that he is free to leave at any time, and 2) if the suspect goes to the station upon invitation of the police but is told he is not under arrest and is free to leave at any time. Questioning in a police car- Miranda warnings must be given even if the suspect hasn’t been placed under arrest. Questioning a person who is in custody for another offense- Miranda warnings must be given When Is the Suspect Under Interrogation? Interrogation: when the police ask questions that tend to incriminate or create the functional equivalent of an interrogation. Functional Equivalent: Any actions or words by the police that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Non-Interrogation Scenarios: Voluntary statements made by the suspect or routine booking questions do not qualify as interrogation. Situations That Require Miranda Warnings Custodial Interrogation: The core requirement for Miranda warnings — the suspect must be both in custody and subject to interrogation. Scenarios Requiring Warnings: Police station questioning after arrest Traffic stop escalating into a custodial situation Interrogations in jail, even if unrelated to the crime of incarceration Exceptions: Public safety exceptions, spontaneous statements, or questions asked during routine processing do not always require Miranda warnings. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) Edwards was arrested and informed of his Miranda rights. After initially waiving his rights and talking to the police, he requested an attorney. The police stopped questioning him, but the next morning, different officers resumed questioning Edwards without his attorney present. Edwards again was advised of his Miranda rights and confessed to the crime. Issue: Can police reinitiate questioning after a suspect has invoked their right to counsel? No, once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, police cannot initiate further questioning until the suspect’s attorney is present, unless the suspect themselves initiates further communication. Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) Minnick was arrested and informed of his Miranda rights. He requested an attorney, and questioning stopped. After consulting with his attorney, police resumed questioning Minnick without his attorney present, and he made incriminating statements. Issue: Can police question a suspect after they have met with their attorney without the attorney being present? No, police cannot resume questioning a suspect who has requested counsel, even if the suspect has previously met with an attorney, unless the attorney is present during further questioning. Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) Roberson was arrested for burglary and given his Miranda warnings. He requested an attorney, and questioning stopped. Three days later, while still in custody, a different officer interrogated Roberson about an unrelated crime without providing an attorney. Roberson was again read his Miranda rights, and he made incriminating statements. Issue: Can police question a suspect about an unrelated crime after the suspect has requested an attorney in connection with a separate investigation? No, once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, police cannot initiate questioning on any subject, even if it is about a different investigation. The Court held that the protection provided by Edwards extends to all subsequent interrogations, regardless of whether they pertain to the same investigation or a different one. The right to counsel is not offense-specific; once invoked, it applies broadly to protect against any further questioning by the police. Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001) Cobb was charged with burglary and confessed to the crime. While under investigation, he was also suspected of murdering a woman and her child, which occurred during the burglary. Cobb was appointed counsel for the burglary charge but was questioned about the murders without his attorney present. During this interrogation, he confessed to the murders. Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel extend to crimes that are factually related to the charged offense? No, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and does not extend to uncharged offenses that are factually related to the charged offense. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel only applies to the specific charges for which the defendant has been formally accused. It does not automatically extend to other offenses, even if they are factually related. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) Seibert was questioned by the police in connection with the death of her son, who had died in a fire set to cover up evidence of neglect. Before receiving her Miranda warnings, Seibert was interrogated and confessed to the crime. After a brief break, the police gave her the Miranda warnings and resumed questioning, during which she repeated her confession. This "two-step" interrogation technique—interrogating first without Miranda warnings, then issuing them and continuing the interrogation—was employed deliberately by the police. Issue: Does the use of a "question first" strategy, where the police intentionally withhold Miranda warnings to obtain a confession and then issue the warnings before obtaining a second, similar confession, violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights? Yes. The Court held that the "two-step" interrogation technique used by the police was deliberately designed to circumvent Miranda protections, rendering the warnings ineffective. The Court emphasized that giving Miranda warnings after an initial unwarned confession does not "cure" the original violation if the initial interrogation was deliberately conducted without warnings. Miranda Rights Waiver Overview A waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known legal right or privilege. In the context of Miranda, it means giving up the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney during police questioning. Requirements for a Valid Waiver: The waiver of Miranda rights must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Factors Affecting Waiver Validity: Age and Education: Younger suspects or those with limited education may lack the understanding needed for a valid waiver. Mental State: Suspects under distress, mental illness, or influence of drugs/alcohol may not be capable of a knowing or voluntary waiver. Police Conduct: Coercive or misleading police behavior can render a waiver invalid. After a Knowing and Voluntary Waiver Voluntary Waiver: A waiver of Miranda rights must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Once a valid waiver is given, officers can continue questioning until the suspect clearly revokes the waiver or requests a lawyer. Application: Questioning can continue unless the suspect clearly states they want to stop or asks for legal representation. The request for an attorney must be unambiguous. Vague references to needing legal advice do not automatically stop the interrogation. Using a Voluntary but Inadmissible Statement to Impeach Credibility Impeachment Use: Statements obtained in violation of Miranda cannot be used in the prosecution's case-in-chief. However, they may be used to impeach the defendant’s credibility if they testify inconsistently in court. Key Example: If a defendant makes conflicting statements, the initial, inadmissible statement can be used to challenge their testimony. Interrogating Without Informing the Suspect of All Crimes Partial Disclosure: Officers are not required to inform suspects of all crimes they are being investigated for before questioning begins. Impact: Miranda warnings apply to the interrogation context, not the specific charges discussed. Oral Confessions Are Admissible Oral Confessions: Confessions do not need to be written to be admissible. As long as the confession is voluntary, it can be used, provided Miranda rights were given and waived appropriately. Key Considerations: The focus is on the voluntariness of the statement rather than its form (oral vs. written). United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) Patane was arrested for violating a restraining order. During the arrest, officers attempted to read Patane his Miranda rights, but he interrupted them. The officers did not fully administer the warnings. Patane then voluntarily disclosed the location of an illegal firearm, which was seized by the police. Issue: Does the failure to fully administer Miranda warnings require the suppression of physical evidence discovered as a result of a voluntary but un-Mirandized statement? No. The Court held that Miranda is designed to protect against violations of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, not to regulate the admissibility of physical evidence. Situations Where Miranda Warnings Are Not Required 1. When the Officer Doesn’t Ask Any Questions Explanation: Miranda warnings are only required if the suspect is in custody and being interrogated. No warnings are needed if no questions are asked. 2. During General On-the-Scene Questioning Explanation: Basic, preliminary questions asked during the initial stages of an investigation do not require Miranda warnings. 3. When the Statement is Volunteered Explanation: If a suspect makes a spontaneous statement without prompting from law enforcement, Miranda does not apply. Situations Where Miranda Warnings Are Not Required 4. Routine Identification Questions Explanation: Asking questions like name, address, or date of birth generally does not require Miranda warnings. 5. Questioning Individuals Who Are Not Suspects Explanation: If the individual questioned is not considered a suspect, Miranda warnings are not necessary. 6. Stop and Frisk Cases Explanation: Brief questioning during a stop-and-frisk does not trigger Miranda as long as it’s part of the stop’s initial purpose and not custodial. Situations Where Miranda Warnings Are Not Required 7. During Lineups or Showups Explanation: Miranda warnings are not required during identification procedures, such as lineups or showups, because these are not considered interrogations. 8. Statements Made to a Private Person Explanation: Miranda does not apply to statements made to private individuals, as the warnings are intended for government interrogations. 9. Testimony Before a Grand Jury Explanation: Grand jury proceedings do not involve custodial interrogation, so Miranda warnings are not required. Situations Where Miranda Warnings Are Not Required 10. When There is a Threat to Public Safety Explanation: The "public safety exception" allows officers to ask questions without Miranda warnings if there’s an immediate threat (e.g., locating a hidden weapon). 11. Undercover Officer Posing as an Inmate Explanation: Statements made to undercover officers posing as inmates are not subject to Miranda because the suspect does not know they are speaking to law enforcement. Basic Constitutional Rights of the Accused During Trial The Right to Trial by Jury Constitutional Basis: The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. Application: Applies in federal and state courts for serious offenses. Tennessee and Federal: 12 jurors are required, and the verdict must be unanimous. Purpose: Protects against government oppression by allowing community participation in determining guilt or innocence. Hung jury- a jury that cannot come to a unanimous agreement to convict or acquit. Double Jeopardy - 5th Amendment Protection It prevents a person from being: Tried twice for the same offense after acquittal or conviction. Punished multiple times for the same crime. When Does Double Jeopardy Apply? After a final verdict (acquittal or conviction). When a case is dismissed with prejudice. After a guilty plea is entered and accepted. When Does Double Jeopardy NOT Apply? Hung jury results in a mistrial (can be retried). The case is dismissed without prejudice. Retrial following an appeal (if the verdict was overturned). Serious vs. Petty Offenses Serious Offenses: Crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than six months require a jury trial. Petty Offenses: Minor crimes with imprisonment of six months or less do not require a jury trial. Example: Felonies typically involve jury trials, while minor misdemeanors might not. How Counsel is Obtained Right to Counsel: Guaranteed under the 6th Amendment. Court-Appointed Counsel: If unable to afford counsel, the court will appoint an attorney. Retained Counsel: Defendants who can afford legal representation are allowed to hire private attorneys. Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Legal Standard: Established in Strickland v. Washington. Two-Prong Test: 1. Counsel’s performance was deficient. 2. The deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Burden of Proof: The defendant must prove both prongs to claim ineffective assistance. The Right to Due Process Constitutional Basis: 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee due process. Application: Protects individuals from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property. Key Concepts: Fair procedures and protection from unjust laws. Procedural Due Process Procedural due process refers to the legal procedures and steps that the government must follow before depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property. It ensures that government actions are carried out fairly and justly, providing the affected person with an opportunity to be heard. Key Points: Focuses on fairness in how the law is enforced. Guarantees the right to notice and a hearing before the government can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Ensures that judicial and administrative proceedings are conducted impartially. Common in cases involving criminal trials, administrative hearings, and civil actions. Substantive Due Process Substantive due process refers to the protection of certain fundamental rights from government interference, regardless of the procedures used. It focuses on whether the government has a legitimate reason to infringe on a person's rights or liberties, emphasizing the "substance" of the laws themselves. Key Points: Protects fundamental rights (e.g., privacy, free speech, marriage, family life). Laws that limit these rights must serve a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored. Courts review these laws to ensure that they do not infringe on fundamental liberties without justification. Substantive due process has been used in landmark cases like Roe v. Wade (right to privacy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (right to marry). The Brady Rule on Disclosure of Evidence Case: Brady v. Maryland (1963). Requirement: Prosecutors must disclose evidence that is favorable to the defense if it is material to guilt or punishment. Violation: Failure to disclose such evidence violates the defendant’s due process rights. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Brady and a companion, Boblit, were charged with first-degree murder. During their trials, both defendants admitted to participating in the crime, but each blamed the other for the actual killing. Brady’s defense requested that the prosecution turn over all statements made by Boblit. While the prosecution provided some statements, they withheld one in which Boblit confessed to the murder. Brady was convicted and sentenced to death. After discovering the withheld statement, Brady appealed, arguing that withholding the confession violated his due process rights. Issue: Does the prosecution's suppression of evidence favorable to the accused violate the defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. The Court held that the prosecution's suppression of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due process when the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. Suppression of such evidence, whether intentional or not, violates due process. Testimonial vs. Nontestimonial Self-Incrimination Testimonial Self-Incrimination: Statements or admissions made by the defendant that can be used as evidence in court. Nontestimonial Self-Incrimination: Physical evidence, such as fingerprints, blood samples, or DNA, which is not protected by the 5th Amendment. Key Point: The 5th Amendment protects against being compelled to testify against oneself, but not against providing physical evidence. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) Davis assaulted his ex-girlfriend, and she called 911 during the altercation. During the 911 call, the victim provided real-time information about the attack. Davis was charged with domestic violence based largely on this call, as the victim did not testify at trial. Davis objected, arguing that admitting the 911 recording without the victim’s in-person testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Issue: Does the admission of a 911 call where the victim describes an ongoing emergency violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses? No. The Court held that the 911 call did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were not "testimonial." Statements made during an ongoing emergency are considered non-testimonial and therefore not subject to the Confrontation Clause. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) Reasoning: The Court distinguished between "testimonial" and "non-testimonial" statements. Testimonial statements are those made with the primary purpose of establishing facts for prosecution, and non-testimonial statements are made in the context of an emergency. Since the 911 call was made to seek help during an ongoing emergency, it was deemed non-testimonial and admissible without the victim’s in-court testimony. Statements made during an emergency, like in the Davis case, do not require the declarant to appear in court for cross-examination. Privileges During Trial for the Accused Right Against Self-Incrimination: 5th Amendment protects defendants from being forced to testify. Right to Remain Silent: Cannot be used against the defendant in court. Double Jeopardy Protection: Defendants cannot be tried twice for the same offense. Privileges During Trial for Witnesses Witness Immunity: Witnesses can be granted immunity from prosecution to compel testimony. Right Against Self-Incrimination: Witnesses can invoke the 5th Amendment to avoid incriminating themselves. Privilege Against Testifying: In some cases, such as spousal privilege, certain witnesses may be exempt from testifying. The Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial Controlling Prejudicial Publicity: Media coverage can influence public opinion and juror impartiality. Courts have methods to protect the right to a fair trial. Change of Venue: Moving a trial to a different location to ensure an unbiased jury. Common when local media coverage may prejudice potential jurors. Sequestration: Isolating jurors from the public and media during the trial to prevent exposure to outside influence. Jurors may stay in a designated location away from media or external communications. Controlling Prejudicial Publicity Continuance: Delaying the trial to allow public attention and media coverage to subside. Can provide time to reduce the impact of prejudicial publicity. Imposing a Gag Rule: Restricting attorneys, witnesses, and others involved in the case from speaking to the media. Protects the integrity of the trial by limiting what information can be publicly discussed. Controlling the Press: Courts may limit press access to certain trial details (e.g., closing hearings to the media or sealing court documents). Balancing the public's right to know with the defendant's right to a fair trial. Other Constitutional Rights of the Accused Protection Against Double Jeopardy The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense. Key Points: ○ Prevents multiple prosecutions for the same crime. ○ Includes protection from multiple punishments for the same crime. ○ Exceptions: Mistrials Appeals by the defense Dual sovereignty (state vs. federal courts) Other Constitutional Rights of the Accused Right to Confront Witnesses Constitutional Basis: Sixth Amendment Key Points: ○ The accused has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses testifying against them. ○ Applies to witnesses in criminal prosecutions. ○ Promotes fairness by allowing the defense to challenge the credibility and testimony of witnesses. Other Constitutional Rights of the Accused Right to Compulsory Process to Obtain Witnesses Constitutional Basis: Sixth Amendment Key Points: ○ The accused has the right to compel witnesses to testify on their behalf. ○ Allows the use of subpoenas to secure witness testimony. ○ Ensures that the defense can present a complete case. Other Constitutional Rights of the Accused Right to Proof of Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Constitutional Basis: Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Key Points: ○ The prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." ○ The highest standard of proof in the legal system. ○ Protects against wrongful convictions. ○ Applies to all elements of a criminal charge.