click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
CJA 3400 - Test 2
Constitutional Issues
Question | Answer |
---|---|
Coercive confession by an inmate acting under the color of law | Arizona v. Fulminante |
Court ruled informant was a police actor but the confession was not obtained by coercion or in a police-dominated atmosphere | Illinois v. Perkins |
Functional equivalent of direct questioning and words or actions that likely lead to an incriminating response requires Miranda | Brewer v. Williams |
Gun near handicap school; conversation among officer IFO patrol car | Rhode Island v. Innis |
Gun in grocery store; public safety issue doesn't require Miranda warnings | New York v. Quarrels |
Right against self-incrimination does not apply to non-testimonial evidence, so no Miranda is required | Pennsylvania v. Muniz |
Treat silence as a waiver of rights | Berghuis v. Thompkins |
"Maybe I need a lawyer" is no sufficient to invoke rights - it must be clear an unequivocal | Davis v. United States |
Invocation of right to silence (and other rights) must be "scrupulously honored" | Michigan v. Mosely |
A break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks is all that is required to re-initiate conversation between the police and defendant | Maryland v. Shatzer |
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 v. Siebert |
Cannot interrogate defendant after formal charges have been filed, without Miranda first; call by co-conspirator on behalf of police was interrogation | State v. Dodson |