Right To Remain Silent

Front 1

What are the facts of Escobedo v. Illinois?

Back 1

-Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning

-Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer

-Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client

-Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder

Front 2

What is the legal question of Escobedo v. Illinois?

Back 2

Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?

Front 3

What is the holding of Escobedo v. Illinois?

Back 3

-5-4; yes

-Justice Goldberg, in his majority opinion, spoke for the first time of "an absolute right to remain silent."

-Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his constitutional right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself

-Where a police investigation begins to focus on a particular suspect who has been refused counsel, his statements to police are excluded.

-This case claimed that the right to counsel begins at the accusatory stage, and the right is in effect for every critical stage of the process which includes all interrogations.

Front 4

What are the facts of Miranda v. Arizona?

Back 4

-consolidation of four cases

-Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape

-After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda

-the written confession was admitted into evidence at trail despite the objection of the defense of the attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation

Front 5

What is the legal question of Miranda v. Arizona?

Back 5

Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

Front 6

What is the holding of Miranda v. Arizona?

Back 6

-5-4

-The court held that the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings

-Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place

-Such safeguards include proof that the suspect was aware of his right to be silent, that nay statement he makes may be used against him, that he has the right to have an attorney present, that he has the right o have an attorney appointed to him, that he may waive these rights if he does so voluntarily, and that if at any points he requests an attorney there will be no further questioning until the attorney arrives

Front 7

What are the facts of Missouri v. Seibert?

Back 7

-Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder for the death of 17 -year-old Donald Rector, who died in a fire set in the mobile home where he lived with Seibert. Several days after the fire, Seibert was interrogated by a police officer.

-The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first. Once she had confessed, the officer took a short break from questioning, then read her her Miranda rights and resumed questioning her after she waived those rights.

-He prompted her to restate the confession that she had made earlier. Based on this second, Mirandized confession, Seibert was convicted.

Front 8

What is the legal question of Missouri v. Seibert?

Back 8

Does the rule from Oregon v. Elstad that a defendant who has made an un- Mirandized confession may later waive her Miranda rights to make a second confession (admissible in court) still apply when the initial confession is the result of an intentional decision by a police officer to withhold her Miranda warnings?

Front 9

What is the holding of Missouri v. Seibert?

Back 9

-the post-Miranda confession is only admissible if the Miranda warning and accompanying break are sufficient to give the suspect the reasonable belief that she has the right not to speak with the police.

-Missouri's practice of interrogating suspects without reading them a Miranda warning, then reading them a Miranda warning and asking them to repeat their confession is unconstitutional.

-the second confession was admissible only if the intermediate Miranda warnings were "effective enough to accomplish their object."

Front 10

What is Justice Clark's dissent in Miranda v. Arizona?

Back 10

-He argued that the majority's opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the 5th Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to the effectively execute their duties

-He wrote that the state should have the burden to prove that the suspect was aware of his rights during the interrogation, but that statements resulting from interrogation should not be automatically excluded if the suspect was not explicitly informed of his rights.

Front 11

What is Justice Harlan's dissent in Miranda v. Arizona?

Back 11

-the judicial precedent and legislative history surrounding the Fifth Amendment does not support the view that the Fifth Amendment prohibits all pressure on the suspect.

-He also argued that there was no legal precedent to support the requirement to specifically inform suspects of their rights.

Front 12

What is Justice Stewart's and Justice White's dissent in Miranda v. Arizone?

Back 12

-Justice White wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from giving self-incriminating testimony if explicitly compelled to do so.

-He argued that custodial interrogation was not inherently coercive and did not require such a broad interpretation of the protections of the Fifth Amendment.

-Such an interpretation harms the criminal process by destroying the credibility of confessions.

Front 13

What is Kennedy's concurrence in Missouri v. Seibert?

Back 13

-a concurring opinion that provided the fifth vote, found that evaluating the warning and accompanying break was only necessary if the police used the two-stage interrogation intentionally.

-"The admissibility of postwarning statements should continue to be governed by Elstad's principles unless the deliberate two-step strategy is employed. Then, the postwarning statements must be excluded unless curative measures are taken before they were made."