Chapter 8IntroductionOver the years innocent people had been sent to jail numerous times due to the fact they were essentially forced into giving confessions. This led judges to begin characterizing some confessions as coerced and involuntary. A Coerced confession is a confession in which an individual is put under such intense pressure the only way out seems to be to confess, such as being tortured or threatened; the book describes it as “people caving in to third-degree tactics.”Past Interrogation PracticesIn medieval times Trial by Ordeal was used, essentially this was some crazy act that almost guaranteed death such as jumping into a river with a heavy rock tied to their neck or being thrown into a giant boiling pot. The idea behind this was that god would save the innocent of any harm and punish the guilty. This is an example of guilty until proven innocent. These terrible procedures led American colonists to adopt the adversarial approach, or innocent until proven guilty. Fifth and Sixth amendment are crucial to this chapter, the Fifth gives the right against self-incrimination and sixth gives the right to counsel during criminal proceedings. The Wickersham CommissionIn 1931 the commission probed many things as discussed earlier in the book, interrogation practices were not exempt. It uncovered a heavy reliance on the 3rd degree. The third-degree is “the employment of methods which inflict suffering, physical or mental, upon a person in order to obtain information about a crime.” Whippings, beatings, and solitary confinement were popular methods. The water cure was also a popular tactic; it “consisted of pouring water from a dipper into the nose… so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror.” Starving, turning them over to angry mobs, and interrogations lasting for days were common tactics and they sometimes even had doctors check them to see how much more people could take. The commission condemned these tactics, saying they were shocking and not to be tolerated. These policies imprisoned the innocent and left criminals at large.Continued Use of Third-Degree TacticsThe mere denouncement of these tactics by the Commission did not end their use. There were cases that surfaced even after. One such case involved the use of a dragnet sweep. Dragnets, this was once a popular technique, it involved police swarming an area and picking up anyone who looked like the criminal and then transporting them to another location to be questioned. The third degree would not simply stop solely due to the Wickersham Commission. Another blue-ribbon panel called The United States Commission on Civil Rights, documented more cases where the police extracted confessions. From 1936-1951 21 convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court for third-degree tactics. This Civil Rights commission found police brutality to be a serious and continuing problem. This led to the US Supreme Court to focus on two aspects of confessions; 1st-suspect gave clear waiver of the right to counsel and self-incrimination, 2nd – whether the police obtained a confession involuntarily.Escobedo v. IllinoisDanny Escobedo was taken into custody at 2:30 A.M. for the shooting death of his brother-in-law. The policed released him at 5:00 in the afternoon when his lawyer showed a court order. He was arrested for questioning 10 days later. The suspect asked for a lawyer and the lawyer asked to see his client, they were both refused. Eventually Escobedo confessed. The lawyer appealed him on two grounds. 1st the police denied him a lawyer; this is a violation of the 6th amendment. 2nd the police did not alert him of his right to remain silent. This showed the police compromised his constitutional rights and therefore Escobedo did not confess voluntarily. Supreme Court ruled on the side of Escobedo. They stated “when the process shifts from investigatory to accusatory… the accused must be permitted to consult with his lawyer.” In other words, once an individual crosses the threshold from subject to suspect, the inquiry shifted from an investigation to an interrogation. The court would later revisit the transition from subject to suspect status and revise it. Escobedo decision left the door open to many questions.Miranda v. ArizonaErnesto Miranda was the prime suspect of a kidnap and rape case in 1963. After being question he signed a full confession and the court gave him a 20-30 year sentence. He appealed to the US Supreme Court and his lawyer argued that the police did not allow Miranda to consult with counsel as a resultmaking his confession involuntary. Without a lawyer he didn’t know his rights, when “the guiding hand of counsel” was so critical to his interests. US Supreme Court overturned his conviction. The most fundamental change due to this case was that police would now need to advise suspects of their rights in the form of the Miranda Warning before asking any questions. This warning had several specific points, 1st a reminder the person did not have to answer any questions, 2nd police would explain that they would use any answers against the suspect in court, 3rd the person had a right to counsel, 4th counsel would be provided for free if they could not afford it, 5th police had to tell suspects they were allowed to stop answering questions at any time, 6th and last police had to secure an intelligent knowing and voluntary waiver. Should these rights be invoke the police must refrain from asking questions. The exact wording came into question during Florida v. Powell (2010). The subject arrested thought the lawyer was only available prior to questioning and not during the interrogation. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Florida. This demonstrates one issue with the Miranda warnings, wording and sentence complexity. 560 different versions around the country were analyzed, most were a 3rd-4th grade reading level while some were 10th grade, with 70% of inmates demonstrating at or below a 6th grade level, this might be quite challenging for some people.The Legal Legacy of MirandaCustodial InterrogationMiranda applied only to custodial interrogations or post-arrest questioning. This raised questions about the nature of custody. The original line was between the person being a subject and a suspect or between them being interviewed or interrogated. This left too much officer discretion however as it was subjective to what the officer was thinking. The new criteria set by the justices was
View Full Document
Unlocking...