5
|
Title of Case |
Summary of the Facts |
Holding by the Court |
Comments/ reasoning |
|
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)<= /p> May an incriminating statement be suppressed when a
∆ has requested and been denied the right to counsel? |
E, a suspect in murder of brother-in-law, held and i= nter. by police and denied his request to talk to his atty. Atty. was available= but not allowed to speak to E. E made statements that tied him to murder, use= d at trial to help convict. |
|
|
|
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Are statements obtained from the subject of a custod=
ial
police interrogation in light of the 5th Amendment project? vs. self-incr=
imination.
& 6th Amend. right to counsel admissible? |
M questioned by law enfor. in kidnapping/rape; cut o=
ff
from outside world, not told of right to atty or right to be silent. Oral=
and
signed statement obtained. |
|
|
|
Colorado v. Connelly (1986)<= /p> 1. Must waivers of M. warnings, if considered “voluntary” and therefore inadmissible, be involuntary b/c of some type of gov’t coercion? 2. Must state bear the burden of proving M waiver by
“clear and convincing evidence?” |
W/o warning, C sought out police & confessed to murder. Properly Mirandized; waived M. rights. Later took police to scene. Later recanted and said “voices” had told him what to = do. Deemed incompetent to aid in own defense. Followed “voice of God;” statements were deemed not “voluntary” and inadmi= ss. State appeals this determination. |
|
|
|
Colorado v. Spring (1987) Does silence (about sub. matter of investigation.) b=
y law
enforcement officials during questioning amount to “trickery”=
and
invalidate suspect’s statements in later questioning sessions (as
“fruit of the poisoned tree”) |
Informant told ATF that Spring had killed Walker and=
engaged
in illeg. selling guns. Undercover agents arrested S. Properly M’d 3
times, he was questioned about the guns and finally about murder. 2 months
later, he was questioned again (and properly M’d) and confessed |
|
|
|
Edwards v. Arizona (1981) When can a suspect assert and then revoke his right =
to
counsel as part of a valid waiver of the Miranda
rights? |
E, suspect in rob., burg. & 1st deg. murder, pro=
perly
M’d, asserted rt. to atty. Next day, not having talked to atty, was
told by guard “he had” to talk to some detectives. Questioned,
made incriminating statements; convicted, appeals |
|
|
|
People v. Braeseke (1982) |
∆ convicted of 1st deg. mur. w/ use of
“confessions” after asking to speak “off the recordR=
21;
with detective. Subsequent statements used against Braeseke. |
|
|