*For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

Criminal Procedure Outline - Professor Fields - Campbell Law - Part 10

By Miller Moreau
Professor Fields - 2021

Download the PDF version of this outline

<< Part 9

iii. The 6th am meets Miranda. Montejo v. US: Law enforcement may initiate interrogation of a suspect in custody after the court has appointed the suspect a counsel as long as consistent with Edwards

  1. The 6th am right to counsel does not preclude police from attempting to interrogate someone in custody under Miranda
    1. Majority:
      1. What’s the deal with Jackson?
        1. There’s an entire line of 6th am cases
        2. In Jackson, court tries to reconcile the 5th and 6th am: holds that when the right to an attorney attaches under the 6th, the police can then not attempt custodial interrogation under miranda, meaning that they can’t read the def his rights and have him waive them w/o an attorney present
        3. So under Jackson, bc Montejo had been appointed a lawyer under the 6th am, police could not approach him and he could not waive under the 5th
      2. This court overrules Jackson (saying that its policy is being adequately served by other means)
  2. Rule now: Edwards and Shatzer—police may approach a suspect in custody, even if his right to counsel has attached previously under the 6th (when not in custody), but they must terminate questioning if the suspect invoked his right to counsel
    1. But can try again if they are released from custody for at least 14 days
i. Right to Counsel Summary: (6th am)

i. Right to counsel for any crime involving actual confinement, both in state and federal court (Gideon, Shelton)

ii. Right to counsel attached at initial appearance (Rothgery) and ends after first level appeal (Ross)

iii. Law enforcement cannot question you w/o an attorney or waiver after indictment and retention of counsel (Massiah)

iv. Law enforcement cannot question you w/o an attorney pre-indictment after you affirmatively request to speak to an attorney (Escobedo)

v. When a suspect received an attorney at arraignment, police cannot initiate custodial interrogation w/o an attorney present (Jackson)
(5th am)

vi. Custodial interrogation is so inherently coercive, suspects must be told they have a right to counsel prior to any interrogation or confession being used against them (if they knowingly waive the right and answer) (Miranda)

vii. When in custody, invocation of right to counsel must be explicit (Davis)

viii. When in custody, when right to counsel is invoked, police cannot “try again” (Edwards) unless a 14 day or more break in custody occurs (Shatzer)

j. Public Safety Exception to Miranda. NY v. Quarles: Overriding Concerns of Public Safety May Justify an Officer’s Failure to Provide Miranda Warnings

i. Views Miranda as a prophylactic—therefore not themselves right protected by the constitution

ii. By weakening Miranda, can balance Miranda—need for answers in public safety setting outweighs need for prohylactic rule

iii. Public safety exception: Allows for pre-Miranda statements to be admitted into evidence and is not dependent on the motivation of the involved officers

  1. “in a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to the police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the officer’s subjective motivation
k. Miranda and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Can Fruits (Testimonial and Physical) of Miranda Violation Be Admitted?

i. US v. Patane: Physical fruits of a Miranda violation must not be excluded from trial

  1. Because Miranda rights are not constitutional rights, fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t apply
  2. “unlike unreasonable searches under the 4th am, or actual violations of the due process clause or self-incrimination clause, there is, with respect to mere failure to warn, nothing to deter”
  3. Important distinction between coerced confessions and Miranda violations

ii. Missouri v. Seibert (Elstad was a good-faith Miranda mistake but here, they’re trying to circumvent Miranda)

  1. Justice Kennedy (considered controlling opinion): The admissibility of post-warning statements should continue to be governed by the principles of Elstad unless the deliberate 2-step strategy is employed
  2. If deliberate, post-warning statements by excluded unless curative measures are taken before the post-warning statement is made

iii. Exclusionary rule

  1. Applies to Miranda violations (made explicit in Miranda)
  2. Applies to violations of due process clause
  3. Applies to violation of self-incrimination clause of the 5th am

iv. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

  1. Applies to violations of due process clause (both physical evidence and statements)
  2. Applies to violations of self-incrimination clause of 5th am (both physical evidence and statements)
  3. Generally, does not apply to Miranda violations:
    1. Does not apply to physical fruits (Patane)
    2. Does not apply to statement fruits (Elstad)
    3. But does apply to “two-step” interrogation techniques when performed as a deliberate attempt to bypass Miranda (Seibert)

v. Dickerson: Miranda is a Constitutional decision of this Court, Congress may not overrule it and Miranda continues to govern the admissibility of a custodial suspect’s statement

vi. Williams: Once adversarial proceedings have commenced against an individual, he is entitled to the assistance of counsel; LE may not deliberately elicit incriminating statements from him

  1. Deliberately elicit: (different from interrogation test in Innis) Focuses on subjective intent of the police officer

vii. Kuhlmann: Law enforcement did not violate defendant’s 6th amendment right to counsel because the police informant did not deliberately elicit incriminating statements from defendant

  1. Defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond mere listening, that was designed to deliberately elicit incriminating remark
Related Topics

The Charlotte lawyers at Powers Law Firm PA are dedicated to compassionate legal representation, predicated on superlative knowledge, trial skills, and conscientious advocacy.

The gift of a legal education extends beyond a fulfilling way to earn a living. Omni autem cui multum datum.

Bill Powers - Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com

Carolina Law Blog / Awards and Certifications

Client Reviews
★★★★★
I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two year stretch together... J.R.
★★★★★
Bill Powers and his firm were a true blessing. If anyone is contacting an attorney, it's more than likely not from a positive life experience. If there was a rating for "bedside manner" for lawyers he'd get a 10/10 for that as well. The entire staff were helpful... K.C.
★★★★★
Bill Powers’ staff has handled several traffic citations for me over the years, and they exceeded my expectations each and every time. Would highly recommend anyone faced with a traffic citation or court case contact his office and they will handle it from there. M.C.
★★★★★
Bill and his staff are flat out great. I (unfortunately) was a repeat customer after a string of tickets. These guys not only took care of the initial ticket for me, but went the extra mile and reduced my problems from 3 to just 1 (very minor one) on the same day I called back! I would recommend them to anyone. A.R.