Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
SCOPE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION |
*3conditions must be met for the privilege to be invoked: 1. there must be compulsion—the statemust compel someone to be a witness 2. testimonial—the witness must betestifying against him/herself 3. testimony must be incriminating |
|
|
LEFKOWITZ V. TURLEY (1973) |
Issue: Is there compulsion? Held: Yup! Because the state is attempting to impose a significant penaltyfor invoking the privilege, that equals compulsion (see very last sentence of opinion) *What if the state did give them immunity from criminalprosecution for answering their questions? Then no compulsion! ·This is called “use immunity” (see 2nd to last paragraph) |
|
|
McKune v. Lile (2002) |
*Incarcerated sex offenders can participate in sexualrehab program, but had to first admit to previous crimes; not just things they had been convictedof—they did not get immunity from prosecution for these admissions! Issue: Whether certain inconveniences can be imposed on a prisoner forremaining silent w/o rising to level of compulsion Held: No compulsion!B/c even though he would experience this change in privilege, it’s not asevere-enough change that he would be compelled; he still has the choice toparticipate. Court thought benefit-penalty distinction too |
|
|
TheGriffin Rule |
Thefact that the defendant did not take the stand cannot be used against him. Griffin v. California (1965); see p. 668, first paragraph |
|
|
FISHER V. UNITED STATES (1976) |
Issues: 1) Can attorney assert privilegeagainst self-incrimination on behalf of his client? 2) Does anyone have a 5thamendment privilege with regard to documents? Held: Attorney cannot claim privilegeon behalf of client *Witness argued that privilegeshould extend to his lawyer based on privacy justification…court rejects thisargument (see p. 674) ·Court says it’s actually theFourth Amendment that protects reasonable expectations of privacy *Themore closely a business form resembles a person, the more likely it is to beprotected; collective entities do not have a privilege againstself-incrimination—individuals do |
|
|
Bellis v. United States (1974) |
heldthat the textual limitation to a “person” meat that partnerships have no FifthAmendment protection |
|
|
United States v. Doe (1984) |
distinguishedBellis; held that a sole proprietorship was entitled toFifth Amendment protection |
|
|
Braswell v. United States (1988) |
held that a corporation—even onewholly owned and operated by a single individual—was not itself entitled toFifth Amendment protection
|
|
|
SCHMERBER V. CALIFORNIA (1966) |
*Government compelled witness to give blood for testing Issue: Was forced blood extraction testimonial? Held: Nope! Reasoning:Court distinguishes btwn physical evidence and testimonial evidence |
|
|
SCHMERBER V. CALIFORNIA (more stuff) |
·Physical evidence ex: bloodsamples, compelled photograph, compelled handwriting samples ·Basis for distinction? The Cruel Trilemna; Justice Brennan sayspurpose of privilege is to prevent witness from cruel trilemna, and physicalevidence does not present cruel trilemna *To know whether evidence is physical ortestimonial, you have to ask whether the defendant faces the “cruel trilemna”in disclosing the evidence |
|
|
Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) |
*Muniz pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, failedsobriety test, arrested, & took him to station Held: evidence of the slurred nature of Muniz’s speech was not testimonialunder Schmerber “and its progeny” ;this evidence (the way he said it)was held to be physical evidence... AND!with respect to theanswer to the sixth bday question, Muniz’s response was testimonial |
|
|
Boyd v. United States (1886) |
Held: a subpoena of one’s private books & papers violates the FifthAmendment, when the content of those papers are incriminating |
|
|
FISHER V. UNITED STATES (1976) |
Held: No fifth amendment privilege for voluntarily prepared documents Reasoning: Government didn’t compel him to write the diary, all hehas to do is turn it over *Act of Production privilege *If the rational is that no one makes you keep a diary, whatabout stuff that the government requires you to keep? Does this defeat therationale? *Required records exception: No Fifth Amendment privilegein content of documents or act or producing them |
|
|
HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY(2004) |
Issue: Does being forced to provide identification violate one’s 5thamendment right?Held: Nope! |
|
|
immunity |
*2types: ·Transactional—broad guaranteeagainst future prosecution ·Derivative Use—more limited, bystatute; if the person is prosecuted, the government would have to prove thatit did not use his admission(s)/testimony or the fruits of that testimony inits prosecution; it would have to prove that it independently learned thisinformation *Can a person be required totestify if the government only offers derivative immunity? Yup! It’s goodenough! See Kastigar case |
|
|
Salinas v. Texas (2013) |
Issue: Was Salinas’s Fifth Amendment right violated? Held: Nope! Reasoning: The privilege is not self-executing; must invoke |
|
|
Brown v. Mississippi (1936) |
Held: Confessions are only admissible if they arevoluntary. What is voluntary? Totalityof the circumstance test!: 1. Personalcharacteristics of the accused 2. Actions of thepolice 3. Circumstancessurrounding the confession Reasoning: The defendants’ confessions were involuntary b/cviolated their 14th amendment due process rights |
|
|
Spano v. New York (1959 |
Issue: Was Mr. Spano’s confession voluntary? Held: Involuntary based on totality of the circumstances (see p. 720 for analysis) *6th Amendmentonly applies after a defendant has been formally charged with a crime -Miranda onlyapplies during a custodial interrogation |
|
|
Green v. Scully (1988) |
Held: “the presence of a direct or implied promise of help or leniency alone has notbarred the admission of a confession” and that “promises do not require ananalysis separate from or different than the totality of the circumstancesrule.” Reasoning: Totality of the circumstances. 1.Green above avg intelligence & streetwise (Personal characteristics of the accused) 2. Interrogationsession only 2 hours long (Actions ofthe police) 3.Green nothandcuffed or in pain during that time (Circumstancessurrounding the confession) |
|
|
Massiah v. United States (1964) |
Issue: Were Mr. Massiah’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rightsviolated? Held: Yes! Reasoning: When a person is formally charged with a crime, thegovernment cannot deliberately elicit incriminating testimony |
|
|
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA (1966) |
Issue: When does the Fifth Amendment attach? Does it attachwhen people are in custody? What are the restraints that society must observethat are consistent w/ prosecuting people for crimesHeld: The Fifth Amendment applies to custodialinterrogation. Why? Reasoning: When you are in custody and subject tointerrogation, it is inherently coercive (seep. 737, underlined portion) *Peopleshould not lose their rights unless they wave them |
|
|
4 procedural safeguards that Miranda requires police to informsuspects of? |
1.Right to remain silent 2. Any statement can be used against them in court 3. Right to an attorney 4. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be providedfor you |
|
|
Harris v. New York (1971) |
Held: government can use Miranda defective statements to impeach a witness Reasoning: Miranda safeguardsare not Constitutionally required *B/cotherwise people would use Miranda asexcuse to commit perjury |
|
|
Oregon v. Hass (1975) |
Held: statements were admissible to impeach the defendant! Reasoning: Defendant had taken the stand and offered directtestimony in conflict w/ the incriminating information w/ knowledge that theinculpatory statements had been ruled inadmissible as substantive evidence *Silence cannot be consideredan admission of guilt |
