Physical fruits = admissible (Patane) Cops gave defective warning to D, who said he was Tucker – w/ friend when crime committed Defective warning excludes D’s confession, but not friend’s testimony b/c not a Const ruling Miranda Same as but admitted Elstad Tucker, D’s 2nd – instead of a friend’s testimony confession Brennan: D already thinks 1st statement sealed his fate this be inadmissible fruit! must – Law allowed use of subsequent confessions that Seibert – parallel earlier ones Miranda-defective Plurality: Midstream warnings after Miranda-defective confession render subsequent confessions inadmissible Distinguishes Elstad Breyer: Plurality is right, but should focus on fruit of initial confession & good faith Kennedy: Apply good faith test unless deliberate Elstad 2-step strategy intended to undermine Miranda If deliberate 2-step approach, post-warning statements related to substance of pre-warning statements = inadmissible unless curative measures THIS IS THE RULE!!!! (8C) Post-warning confession = admissible Terry – where D started to talk pre-warning, but cop interrupted to warn b/c no indication cops deliberately undermining Miranda Cop tried to Mirandize, but only said right to remain Patane – silent before D said he knew his rights; Interrogation continued & D confessed Plurality: Physical fruits of Miranda-defective statement = admissible b/c doesn’t implicate same 5A concerns violation = failure to warn & Miranda admission of derivative confession If no confession admitted, physical evidence is in the clear Kennedy: If resultant not admitted at trial, statements irrelevant whether cop violated Miranda Therefore, admission of non-testimonial physical fruits is ok Souter & Breyer: This encourages interrogators to ignore Miranda THIS IS THE RULE!!!! Emergency:
Physical fruits = admissible (Patane) Tucker – Cops gave defective warning to D, who said he was w/ friend when crime committed Defective warning excludes D’s confession, but not friend’s testimony b/c Miranda not a Const ruling Elstad – Same as Tucker, but admitted D’s 2nd confession instead of a friend’s testimony Brennan: D already thinks 1st statement sealed his fate – this must be inadmissible fruit! Seibert – Law allowed use of subsequent confessions that parallel earlier Miranda-defective ones Plurality: Midstream warnings after Miranda-defective confession render subsequent confessions inadmissible Distinguishes Elstad Breyer: Plurality is right, but should focus on fruit of initial confession & good faith Kennedy: Apply Elstad good faith test unless deliberate 2-step strategy intended to undermine Miranda If deliberate 2-step approach, post-warning statements related to substance of pre-warning statements = inadmissible unless curative measures THIS IS THE RULE!!!! Terry (8C) – Post-warning confession = admissible where D started to talk pre-warning, but cop interrupted to warn b/c no indication cops deliberately undermining Miranda Patane – Cop tried to Mirandize, but only said right to remain silent before D said he knew his rights; Interrogation continued & D confessed Plurality: Physical fruits of Miranda-defective statement = admissible b/c doesn’t implicate same 5A concerns Miranda violation = failure to warn & admission of derivative confession If no confession admitted, physical evidence is in the clear Kennedy: If resultant statements not admitted at trial, irrelevant whether cop violated Miranda Therefore, admission of non-testimonial physical fruits is ok Souter & Breyer: This encourages interrogators to ignore Miranda THIS IS THE RULE!!!! Emergency:
Criminal%20Procedure%20-%20Cheh%20-%20Fall%202011.docx