When counsel is requested, can’t reinitiate interrogation without counsel, even if Δ 1990 Minnick has consulted with counsel 1994 Right to counsel must be unambiguously invoked Davis is a constitutional decision of the court, thus can’t be overruled by an Act Miranda 2000 US v. Dickerson of Congress embedded in routine police practice/part of national culture Bad faith question-first tactic requires curative measures (factors); good faith 2004 Seibert question-first violation of is under Miranda Elstad Physical fruits of a violation are admissible (note: still must be a voluntary Miranda 2004 Patane statement) 2010 Warnings don’t have to be literal, just have to get the point across Powell 14d break is long enough break in custody to requestion after asserts right to Δ 2010 Shatzer counsel Suspect who receives and understands waives the right by making an Miranda, 2010 Berghuis statement to police 2011 Age is considered in determining whether is in custody J.D.B. Δ Person in prison doesn’t automatically mean custody need inherently coercive – 2012 v. Fields pressures as in Miranda 6th Amendment ----- denotes cases that erode the right – Case Year Rule Police cannot question without attorney once 6th Am. right has attached and critical Δ 1964 Massiah phase (i.e. interrogation) 1964 Fact intensive holding amounting to right to attorney after invokes Escobedo Δ Police violate the 6th Am. when they deliberately attempt to elicit incriminating 1977 Brewer statements from Δ Post-indictment statements to jailhouse informant that deliberately elicited statements 1980 Henry inadmissible 1985 Informant can elicit statements from for any crime has not been indicted for Moulton Δ Δ Volunteered statements to jailhouse informant are admissible so long as made them Δ 1986 Kuhlmann spontaneously and informant didn’t elicit and happenstance” – “luck 1986 Right attaches at first formal charging proceeding Moran v. Burbine 1991 Informant can’t elicit statements by using threat of assault from other inmates Fulminante attaches at first hearing, counsel present at critical stages, critical stages are 2008 Rothgery necessary to guarantee effective assistance at (interrogation is critical stage) Waiving the right to counsel under 5th or 6th Am. are both governed by 2009 Montejo 2009 Statements made in violation of can be used for impeachment Ventris Massiah
Minnick 1990 When counsel is requested, can’t reinitiate interrogation without counsel, even if Δ has consulted with counsel Davis 1994 Right to counsel must be unambiguously invoked US v. Dickerson 2000 Miranda is a constitutional decision of the court, thus can’t be overruled by an Act of Congress embedded in routine police practice/part of national culture Seibert 2004 Bad faith question-first tactic requires curative measures (factors); good faith question-first violation of Miranda is under Elstad Patane 2004 Physical fruits of a Miranda violation are admissible (note: still must be a voluntary statement) Powell 2010 Warnings don’t have to be literal, just have to get the point across Shatzer 2010 14d break is long enough break in custody to requestion after Δ asserts right to counsel Berghuis 2010 Suspect who receives and understands Miranda, waives the right by making an statement to police J.D.B. 2011 Age is considered in determining whether Δ is in custody v. Fields 2012 Person in prison doesn’t automatically mean custody – need inherently coercive pressures as in Miranda 6th Amendment – ----- denotes cases that erode the right Case Year Rule Massiah 1964 Police cannot question Δ without attorney once 6th Am. right has attached and critical phase (i.e. interrogation) Escobedo 1964 Fact intensive holding amounting to right to attorney after Δ invokes Brewer 1977 Police violate the 6th Am. when they deliberately attempt to elicit incriminating statements from Δ Henry 1980 Post-indictment statements to jailhouse informant that deliberately elicited statements inadmissible Moulton 1985 Informant can elicit statements from Δ for any crime Δ has not been indicted for Kuhlmann 1986 Volunteered statements to jailhouse informant are admissible so long as Δ made them spontaneously and informant didn’t elicit – “luck and happenstance” Moran v. Burbine 1986 Right attaches at first formal charging proceeding Fulminante 1991 Informant can’t elicit statements by using threat of assault from other inmates Rothgery 2008 attaches at first hearing, counsel present at critical stages, critical stages are necessary to guarantee effective assistance at (interrogation is critical stage) Montejo 2009 Waiving the right to counsel under 5th or 6th Am. are both governed by Ventris 2009 Statements made in violation of Massiah can be used for impeachment
CrimPro%20Friedman%20Spring%202013.docx