Ap u.s. government & politics Thursday, April 12, 2018

Warm-Up/HW Check What was the result of the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright? A) The right to remain silent was established. B) The right to an attorney in criminal trials was established. C) The right to be informed of one’s rights when arrested and interrogated was established. D) The right to remain silent was incorporated against the states. E) The right to an attorney in criminal trials was incorporated against the states.

The Rights of the Accused

Rights of the Accused: Sources 5th Amendment “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…” Rights: Against self-incrimination Due Process Components? 6th Amendment “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” To counsel, including court-appointed counsel for the indigent

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering; he requested an attorney be appointed for him Gideon’s request was denied, as Florida law only provided for the appointment of counsel in capital cases Holding: The Supreme Court strikes down the Florida statute The 6th Amendment is incorporated against the states

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 1) Detailed Procedures laid out for Custodial Interrogations Non-Custodial Interrogations—are Outside the Scope of Miranda Absence Compliance with the procedures, any statement will be Presumed to be Inadmissible 2) Waiver of Rights—must be Knowing and Intelligent Once Waiver is obtained, a suspect can be questioned in Any Way that was legal, pre-Miranda Heavy Burden on the gov’t to show that a waiver was Knowing and Intelligent Waiver can be Withdrawn at any time; and questioning must Stop (most radical part of the decision)   Required Warnings 1) Right to Remain Silent 2) Consequence of Waiving the Right 3) Right to Counsel 4) Right to Appointed Counsel for the Indigent

The Scope of Miranda The Meaning of “Custody” Police pull a suspect over for driving erratically. They interrogate the suspect, who admits to having consumed intoxicants. Is the confession admissible? Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) A defendant was questioned by his parole officer about a crime that had occurred years ago. The meeting with the officer was a requirement of parole. Is the confession admissible? Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) The Meaning of “Interrogation” A suspect was questioned by an undercover agent, while in jail, about a previous crime. During the course of the conversation, the suspect essentially gave a full confession. Is the confession admissible? Illinois v. Perkins (1990)

Invocation of Miranda rights A suspect is interrogated about a burglary and invokes his Right to Counsel. Three days later a police officer interrogated him about another robbery, again informing him of his rights. This time the suspect agreed to talk. Was the second interrogation permissible? Arizona v. Roberson (1988) A suspect invoked his Right to Counsel, was allowed to consult with an attorney, and then was questioned again. Was the second interrogation permissible? Minnick v. Mississippi (1990)

Post-invocation Waiver of Miranda rights A defendant was interrogated about several robberies; after some period of time he Invoked his Right to Remain Silent. The next day, a different officer interrogated him about a murder, after advising him of his rights and obtaining a Waiver. Was the second interrogation permissible? Michigan v. Mosely (1975) Test: invocation of the right must be “scrupulously honored” Reasoning: there has to be some Functional Standard for when questioning of a suspect can continue; Because the right to remain silent cannot be Indefinite in duration A defendant invoked his Right to Counsel. Later, as he was being transferred to a different facility, he asked the driver, “What’s going to happen to me now.” The driver suggested he take a polygraph test, which the defendant did—after which he made a full confession. Was the confession admissible? Oregon v. Bradshaw (1983)

Homework 1) Textbook, p. 131-134 2) Prepare for Practice FRQ #16: Freedom of Religion Clauses Supreme Court Cases Limitations on the impact of SCOTUS decisions