U.S. Interrogation and Criminal Homicide Law

podstawowy

wpisz symbol/symbole efektów kształcenia

This course considers the principal issues of criminal investigation arising under the Fifth Amendment. The course will explore the specific police investigative methods of suspect interrogation and identification procedures.

COURSE INSTRUCTOR: Professor Melanie Reid

• Email: melanie.reid@lmunet.edu

COURSE PLAN

No. Topic Planned amount in hours

1. History of Interrogation Law 1 hour

2. Interrogations: due process and voluntariness 2 hours

3. Miranda v. Arizona 2 hours

4. The Miranda Rule: What is custody and interrogation? 2 hours

5. Waiver and Invocation of the Right to Silence and Right to Counsel 2 hours

6 Violations and Exceptions to Miranda v. Arizona 2 hours

7. 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination 2 hours

8. Eyewitness identification procedures 2 hours

COURSE CONTENT

Monday – June 6th: read pages 483-485, 489-503

• Interrogations: due process and voluntariness

For confessions to be admissible, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that they be voluntary. Voluntariness is assessed by looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect’s age, education and metal and physical condition, along with the setting, duration, and manner of police interrogation. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991); Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959); Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).

Tuesday – June 7th: read pages 504-517, 527-543, 546-553

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination became the basis for ruling upon the admissibility of a confession. The Miranda warnings and a valid waiver are prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by the accused during custodial interrogation.

Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977); J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).

Wednesday – June 8th: read pages 558-561, 575-582, 590-611

• Waiver and Invocation of the Right to Silence and Right to Counsel

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979); Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250 (2010); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981); Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990); Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S.Ct. 1213 (2010).

• Violations and Exceptions to Miranda v. Arizona

The detainee may waive his rights under Miranda. To be valid the government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971); New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1995); Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004); United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004).

Thursday – June 9th: read pages 612-623, 744-762

• 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination

• Homicide Interrogations

Students will view interrogation videos and utilize what they have learned to determine if the particular interrogation was voluntary and constitutional under Miranda v. Arizona.

Friday – June 10th: read pages 828-835, 838-847, 849-858

• Eyewitness Identification Procedures

A defendant can attack an identification as denying due process when the identification is unnecessarily suggestive and there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972); United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).

Wednesday – June 15th at noon – email your response/court order to melanie.reid@lmunet.edu

Criminal Procedure: A Free Law School Casebook

Ben Trachtenberg and Anne Alexander

CALI eLangdell Press 2020

No ISBN # - download it for free here: https://www.cali.org/the-elangdell-bookstore or order a print copy

Upon completion of this course, students will understand the fundamentals of criminal procedure and will have gained further insight into the larger public policies underlying criminal procedural issues such as in-custodial interrogations and concerns with eyewitness procedures. Students will understand how to challenge Fifth Amendment violations that result in suppression hearings. Students should:

• Understand the U.S. rules surrounding custodial interrogation and eyewitness identification and trial testimony.

• Learn how to navigate the interconnected world of criminal justice and help them formulate their own ideas for the best policies for the criminal justice system in Poland and beyond.

Your grade in this class will be determined as follows:

• 30% of your grade will be based upon in-class participation, and

• 70% of your grade will be based upon your court order ruling upon a motion to suppress that you will turn in at the end of the course. You will be asked to fully evaluate an interrogation and eyewitness identification process and determine whether in fact the interrogation and identification process are unconstitutional and whether the evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation/identification process should be inadmissible. Your conclusion is NOT as important as your explanation of the rules and analysis of all the issues. Assume the jurisdiction follows the U.S. Constitution and the federal case law you have examined and discussed in class.