Select Page

Criminal Procedure
University of Dayton School of Law
Brenner, Susan W.

Inculpatory Statements- incriminate self
Exculpatory Statements- exonerate self

I. Confessions: The Voluntariness Requirement

A. Torture and Confessions

1. Three possible tests for when to suppress confessions:
i. When the inducement is of a nature calculated under the circumstances to induce a confession irrespective of its truth or falsity.
ii. When there is a threat or promise, a fear or a hope. (Can’t offer leniency)
iii. When the confession is not voluntary.

Brown v. Mississippi- (beat the confession (precisely developed by interrogators))
– can’t beat a confession out of a suspect- probably not going to be voluntary or accurate
– created rule that you could not beat confession out of someone- before, free game.
– 5th amendment right against self-incrimination did not apply to the states here
– if you beat someone to get confession, punishment to cops is suppressing evidence

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. The State of Israel- (shaking)
– “Shaking”- this is a form of torture
B. Police Interrogation Without Torture

1. Due Process Voluntariness Test
i. CPC- Was there Coercive Police Conduct?
ii. Was there will overborne? (Did the police go too far?)
1. Character of Suspect
2. Police Tactics
3. Context

o Factors to see if will was overborne (INVOLUNTARINESS FACTORS)
§ 1. Character of the suspect- was he educated, healthy, vulnerable or resistant?
§ 2. Police Tactics
§ 3. Context- when did interrogation or confession occur? Was it after 22 hours of questioning or without being able to use the bathroom for 24 hours or not provided insulin, etc?

Spano v. New York- (friend in police academy provided false story about getting in trouble due to call from D)
– can lie to an alleged criminal, but cannot break their will
– “Diagnostic Process” to see if voluntary
o Was the person’s will overborne by official pressure
§ 2 presumptions of when this is so
· If tortured- assumed the person’s had no will
· If promised leniency- person presumed to have had no will
– Since the “friend” questioned suspect 4 times, it was found that they went “too far”
– Analyze under the Due Process Voluntariness Test:
1. Character of the suspect- immigrant, not educated, 25 years old
– looking for vulnerabilities here to show not equipped for the interrogation
– criminal history is a factor- Spano had no record, not familiar w/ system
2. Police Tactics- police used his “friend” as leverage over and over + lied
3. Context- when and how did the interrogation occur- here from 7PM to sunrise
** Big question is whether or not the interrogators went too far

Colorado v. Connelly- (question of whether schizophrenic is under free will to make a confession)
– Trial court and Supreme Court of CO. concluded no free will b/c m.s. and no a

uestioned while in
the nude. Confession not voluntary b/c CPC and will overborne.

2. Miranda Spawns a New Law of Confessions

Miranda v. Arizona- the Miranda case, laying out the procedure, evil trying to remedy, etc.
– Once a suspect is in Custody, if there is to be interrogation, must assure that an individual is accorded a
chance to invoke their privilege under the V amendment not to be compelled to incriminate self
– Triggered when Custody + Interrogation
– Custody- defined as being deprived of freedom of action in any significant way
– Evil trying to remedy is leveling the playing field and preventing violation of V & VI Amend.
– Ensure there is least an opportunity to invoke right to silence and right to counsel
– Does not supercede Due Process Voluntary Test- if custody + interrogation, requires both
– Must give Miranda to everyone- even if the person is a judge (reminds them)
– Informing of V Amendment, in addition to informing or reminding suspect of the right, shows that the
interrogators will abide by it if you invoke it (at least for a few hours)

Miranda applies in custodial interrogation (C+I)