musicfor18 wrote: xlawschoolhopefulx wrote: musicfor18 wrote: kyle010723 wrote:
Andrews989 wrote:On the criminal procedure questions, can anyone explain the difference between when to choose these two answer choices?
1) The confession was obtained involuntarily
2) The confession was obtained in violation of Miranda
Barbri usually says both are correct, but one is better in the circumstances for some random reason
My impression is
1) Put Defendant in a room to talk with his mom after giving him Miranda, unbeknown to Defendant, the room was rigged
2) Had custody and interrogated Defendant without giving him the Miranda. i.e. Police handcuffed you and asked you if that bag of cocaine is yours
I'm not completely sure that your number (1) example would violate due process. My sense is it would be more of a 4th Amendment issue. Anyone have thoughts on this?
(1) kind of resembles a question from MBE Set 5. Rigging the room without a warrant and p.c. would raise a voluntariness issue if putting the defendant in the room amounted to an interrogation. In the example from set 5, I believe the defendant was told that his girlfriend (a co-conspirator) had confessed to the crime and then allowed him to speak with her in a rigged room knowing that they would likely discuss the crime she supposedly confessed to.
Was this a due process or Miranda issue? In other words, had the defendant been given Miranda warnings?
(1) would be a due process issue with or without the defendant getting Mirandized. That is, if the officers took the defendant out back and beat him until he confessed, that is obviously an extreme example of an involuntary confession. An involuntary confession might be when the defendant does not know of the recorder in the room--which would be against due process. However, if the defendant had not invoked his Miranda warnings, it would likely not been against his Miranda rights, because the officers did not have to scrupulously honor his invocation of rights. Also, if the defendant knew or should have known that the conversation was being recorded, I think I remember a case from crim pro of the cop laying a recorder on the table before he left or something, then the confession would not violate his due process rights and would be voluntary.
My crim pro prof always said the #1 thing to remember is we are trying to deter the police behavior, not reward the defendant.
(2) For the confession to be in violation of Miranda, like I said above, the confession would have to have been given without the Miranda warnings (improperly, like without saying they have the right to remain silent) or if the defendant affirmatively invokes his rights, then by not scrupulously honoring that invocation.
This could be like totally wrong, but this is what comes to mind from what I remember learning back in crim pro.