JosephWolf

Month3casebriefs

1. Harrisv.NewYork.
401U.S.222(1971)

2.
Harrissoldherointoanundercoverpoliceofficer.Hewaschargedandlatersentenced.
Duringthetrialherepresentedhimselfandgotonthestandtomakehiscase.Duringhis
testimonyhemadeclaimsthatwerenotconsistentwithwhathestatedtopoliceimmediately
afterhisarrest.Hestatedthatheknewthepolicewereundercover,thathesoldthemfake
heroin,andthathewastryingtoprovethiswasallafaketransaction.Theprosecutionentered
intoevidencehisstatementsthatweremadetopolice.Theycontradictedthestatementshe
madeonthestand,thusimpeachinghim.HarrisarguedthathisMirandarightswerebreached
sincetheydidnotnotifyhimofhisrighttoanattorney.Thus,harriswantedhisstatementsmade
tothepoliceafterhisarresttobethrownout.

3.
Foundguiltyatthefirsttrial,appealedtotheNewYorkCourtofAppeal(25N.Y.2d175,250
N.E.2d349).Theyaffirmedthelowercourt'sdecision.

4.
Shouldtheevidenceofthestatementshemadetopolicebesuppressed,asinshouldthey
beallowedtoimpeachhim?

5.
SuppressingtheevidencewouldviolatethedueprocessclauseoftheConstitution.Thisis
notallowed.
TheshieldprovidedbyMirandacannotbepervertedintoalicensetouseperjurybythewayof
adefense,freefromtheriskofconfrontationwithpriorinconsistentutterances.

6.
WrittenbyJusticeBurger

Mirandabarredtheprosecutionfrommakingitscasewithstatementsofanaccusedmadewhile
incustodypriortohavingoreffectivelywaivingcounsel.ItdoesnotfollowfromMirandathat
evidenceinadmissibleagainstanaccusedintheprosecution'scaseinchiefisbarredforall
purposes,providedofcoursethatthetrustworthinessoftheevidencesatisfieslegalstandards.

InWalderv.UnitedStatesthecourtpermittedphysicalevidence,inadmissibleinthecasein
chief,tobeusedforimpeachmentpurposes.

Petitioner'stestimonyinhisownbehalfconcerningtheeventsofJanuary7thcontrastedsharply
withwhathetoldthepoliceshortlyafterhisarrest.Theimpeachmentprocessprovided
valuableaidtothejuryinassessingcredibility.

Everycriminaldefendantisprivilegedtotestifyinhisowndefense,ortorefusetodoso.But
thatprivilegecannotbeconstruedtoincludetherighttocommitperjury.

7.

JusticeBlack,withwhomBrennan,Douglas,andMarshalldissent.

ThemajoritymisreadWalder.Inthatcasetheuseofimpeachmentwasnotusedinthecurrent
case,andithadnothingtodowiththeactualchargethedefendantwasbeingchargedwith.It
wastertiaryanddealtwithasweepingstatementofinnocence.Intoday'scaseimpeachmentis
beingusedagainstthedefendantonachargethatheiscurrentlydealingwith.Thesearetwo
differentsituations.Onecannotbeusedtojustifytheother.

Anincriminatingstatementisasincriminatingwhenusedtoimpeachcredibilityasitiswhen
usedasdirectproofofguilt.Ifitcan'tbeusedasevidence,itshouldnotbeusedtoimpeach.

Thecourtscannotagreewithalawbreakingpoliceofficer.

Thestatementsshouldnothavebeenusedtoimpeach.

____

1. NewYorkv.Quarles
467U.S.649(1984)

2.
OnSeptember11,1980,atapproximately12:30a.m.,OfficerFrankKraftandOfficerSal
ScarringwereonroadpatrolinQueens,N.Y.,whenayoungwomanapproachedtheircar.She
toldthemthatshehadjustbeenrapedbyablackmale,approximatelysixfeettall,whowas
wearingablackjacketwiththename"BigBen"printedinyellowlettersontheback.Shetold
theofficersthatthemanhadjustenteredanA&Psupermarketlocatednearbyandthatthe
manwascarryingagun.
OfficerKraftquicklyspottedrespondent,whomatchedthedescriptiongivenbythewoman,
approachingacheckoutcounter.Apparentlyuponseeingtheofficer,respondentturnedandran
towardtherearofthestore,andOfficerKraftpursuedhimwithadrawngun.Whenrespondent
turnedthecornerattheendofanaisle,OfficerKraftlostsightofhimforseveralseconds,and
uponregainingsightofrespondent,orderedhimtostopandputhishandsoverhishead.
Hefriskedhimanddiscoveredthathewaswearingashoulderholsterwhichwasthenempty.
Afterhandcuffinghim,OfficerKraftaskedhimwherethegunwas.Respondentnoddedinthe
directionofsomeemptycartonsandresponded,"thegunisoverthere."OfficerKraftthereafter
retrievedaloaded.38caliberrevolverfromoneofthecartons,formallyplacedrespondent
underarrest,andreadhimhisMirandarightsfromaprintedcard.

Thelowercourtsrejectedthestatementssayingwherethegunwas,andasaresult,theentire
evidenceofthegunwasthrownout.Thiswasappealed.

3.
AppellateDivision(85App.Div.2d936,447N.Y.S.2d84(1981))affirmedthatthestatement
andthegunshouldbeexcused

TheCourtofAppeals(58N.Y.2d664,44N.E.2d984(1982)alsoaffirmedthatthestatement,
andthegun,shouldbesuppressed.Hewasincustodyandansweredaquestionbeforehis
Mirandarights.Thisisaviolation.

4.
IsthereapublicsafetylimitationtotheMirandaRights?Inotherwords,cananofficerask
youaquestionwhentheneedforpublicsafetyoutweighstheprotectionsgivenbymiranda?

Shouldtheevidencebeallowed?

5.
ThereisapublicsafetyexceptiontotheMirandaRequirement.Whateverthemotivationof
individualofficers,wedonotbelievethatthedoctrinalunderpinningsofMirandarequirethatit
beappliedinallitsrigortoasituationinwhichpoliceofficersaskquestionsreasonably
promptedbyaconcernforthepublicsafety.

Asaresult,theevidenceshouldbeallowedintothecase.

6.
JusticeRehnquistgavetheopinion.

Thepoliceinthiscase,intheveryactofapprehendingasuspect,wereconfrontedwiththe
immediatenecessityofascertainingthewhereaboutsofagunwhichtheyhadeveryreasonto
believethesuspecthadjustremovedfromhisemptyholsteranddiscardedinthesupermarket.
Solongasthegunwasconcealedsomewhereinthesupermarket,withitsactualwhereabouts
unknown,itobviouslyposedmorethanonedangertothepublicsafety:anaccomplicemight
makeuseofit,acustomeroremployeemightlatercomeuponit.
Insuchasituation,ifthepolicearerequiredtorecitethefamiliarMirandawarningsbefore
askingthewhereaboutsofthegun,suspectsinQuarles'positionmightwellbedeterredfrom
responding.

Here,hadMirandawarningsdeterredQuarlesfromrespondingtoOfficerKraft'squestionabout
thewhereaboutsofthegun,thecostwouldhavebeensomethingmorethanmerelythefailure
toobtainevidenceusefulinconvictingQuarles.OfficerKraftneededananswertohisquestion
notsimplytomakehiscaseagainstQuarlesbuttoinsurethatfurtherdangertothepublicdid
notresultfromtheconcealmentoftheguninapublicarea.

Weconcludethattheneedforanswerstoquestionsinasituationposingathreattothepublic
safetyoutweighstheneedfortheprophylacticruleprotectingtheFifthAmendment'sprivilege
againstselfincrimination.WedeclinetoplaceofficerssuchasOfficerKraftintheuntenable
positionofhavingtoconsider,ofteninamatterofseconds,whetheritbestservessocietyfor
themtoaskthenecessaryquestionswithouttheMirandawarningsandrenderwhatever

probative
658*658
evidencetheyuncoverinadmissible,orforthemtogivethewarningsinorder
topreservetheadmissibilityofevidencetheymightuncoverbutpossiblydamageordestroy
theirabilitytoobtainthatevidenceandneutralizethevolatilesituationconfrontingthem

Thepolicecandeterminewhenitisneededtoenforcethis.OfficerKraftaskedonlythequestion
necessarytolocatethemissinggunbeforeadvisingrespondentofhisrights.Itwasonlyafter
securingtheloadedrevolverandgivingthewarningsthathecontinuedwithinvestigatory
questionsabouttheownershipandplaceofpurchaseofthegun.Theexceptionwhichwe
recognizetoday,farfromcomplicatingthethoughtprocessesandtheonthescenejudgments
ofpoliceofficers,willsimplyfreethemtofollowtheirlegitimateinstinctswhenconfronting
situationspresentingadangertothepublicsafety.

7.

JusticeOconnor,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart.

WeretheCourtwritingfromacleanslate,Icouldagreewithitsholding.ButMirandaisnowthe
lawand,inmyview,theCourthasnotprovidedsufficientjustificationfordepartingfromitorfor
blurringit'snowclearstrictures.Accordingly,Iwouldrequiresuppressionoftheinitialstatement
takenfromrespondentinthiscase.Ontheotherhand,nothinginMirandaortheprivilegeitself
requiresexclusionofnontestimonialevidencederivedfrominformalcustodialinterrogation,and
IthereforeagreewiththeCourtthatadmissionoftheguninevidenceisproper.
JusticeMarshall,withJusticeBrennanandJusticeStevensdissent.

ThepoliceinthiscasearrestedamansuspectedofpossessingafirearminviolationofNew
Yorklaw.Oncethesuspectwasincustodyandfoundtobeunarmed,thearrestingofficer
initiatedaninterrogation.Withoutbeingadvisedofhisrightnottorespond,thesuspect
incriminatedhimselfbylocatingthegun.ThemajorityconcludesthattheStatemayrelyonthis
incriminatingstatementtoconvictthesuspectofpossessingaweapon.Idisagree.The
arrestingofficershadnolegitimatereasontointerrogatethesuspectwithoutadvisinghimofhis
rightstoremainsilentandtoobtainassistanceofcounsel.Byfindingonthesefactsjustification
forunconsentedinterrogation,themajorityabandonstheclearguidelinesenunciatedin
Miranda
v.Arizona,384U.S.436(1966),
andcondemnstheAmericanjudiciarytoaneweraofposthoc
inquiryintotheproprietyofcustodialinterrogations.Moresignificantlyandindirectconflictwith
thisCourt'slongstandinginterpretationoftheFifthAmendment,themajorityhasendorsedthe
introductionofcoercedselfincriminatingstatementsincriminalprosecutions.

___

1. ThepeopleoftheStateofNewYork,Respondent,v.ClarkWilliams,Appellant.
62
N.Y.2d285(1984)

2.
A20yearoldmanwasarrestedforthemurderandrapeofawoman.Thismanwasfunctionally
illiterate,andborderlinementallyretarded.Healsosufferedfromorganicbraindamageasa
resultofhavingbeenstruckbyacarduringhischildhood.

Defendantwastakentothepolicestationforquestioning.Havingbeenadvisedthatdefendant
wasabit"slow,"thedetectivewhoadministeredtheMirandawarningsdidnotrestricthimselfto
amerereadingoftherightsfromacard,asisusuallydonebypoliceofficers.Instead,the
officerdescribedtherightsinmoredetailandsimplerlanguage,verifyingthatdefendant
understoodeachrightbeforeproceedingtothenextwarning.Defendantagreedtospeaktothe
detectiveandultimatelymadeinculpatorystatementsafterspeakingtohismother,whowasin
thenextroom.

Afterbeingfoundcompetenttostandtrial,defendantmovedtosuppresshisstatements.

3.
Nonegiven

4.
Canthedefendantsuppressthestatementshemadewhilebeinginterrogated?

5.
Nodistinctionnormallyshouldbemadeonthebasisofanindividual'sintelligenceastowhat
constitutesavalidwaiverofthoserights.Theinquiryisfocusedinitiallyupontheaccused's
understandingoftheimmediatemeaningofthewarnings.Ifthatcomprehensionispresent,then
thewaiverwillbegiveneffectintheabsenceofotherfactorssuggestingalackofvoluntariness.

Thedefendantunderstoodwhattherightsmeant,waivedthoserights,andtalked.Thus,the
statementscannotbesuppressed.

6.

AcourtmustalwaysascertainwhetherthedefendantunderstoodhowtheMirandarights
affectedthecustodialinterrogation.Indealingwithapersonofsubnormalintelligence,close
scrutinymustbemadeofthecircumstancesoftheassertedwaiver.

AnindividualmayvalidlywaiveMirandarightssolongastheimmediateimportofthose
warningsiscomprehended,regardlessofhisorherignoranceofthemechanicsbywhichthe
fruitsofthatwaivermaybeusedlaterinthecriminalprocess.

Theremaybeatheoreticaldistinctionbetweenapersonofnormalintelligencewhoismerely
unfamiliarwiththelegalprocessandapersonofsubnormalintelligencewhoisincapableof
understandingthelegalprocess.Asapracticalmatter,however,bothstandinthesameshoes

whenconfrontedwithmakingaknowledgeabledecisiontorelinquishtherighttoremainsilent:
neitheronemakesadecisionwiththebenefitoffullycomprehendingthepolicybehindthe
Mirandarightsandthevariousimplicationsofwaivingthem.

Althoughasuspectmustbeapprisedofhisorherrights,providingagenerallegaleducationis
notthebusinessofthepoliceorthecourts.Itmustbeshownthattheindividualgraspedthathe
orshedidnothavetospeaktotheinterrogatorthatanystatementmightbeusedtothe
subject'sdisadvantageandthatanattorney'sassistancewouldbeprovideduponrequest,at
anytime,andbeforequestioningiscontinued.

Thedefendantshowedthatheunderstoodthesimplelanguagetheinvestigatorused.Thus,he
waivedhisrights.

7.
Nonegiven.
______


1. Mirandav.Arizona
384U.S.436(1966)

2.
OnMarch13,1963,petitioner,ErnestoMiranda,wasarrestedathishomeandtakenin
custodytoaPhoenixpolicestation.Hewasthereidentifiedbythecomplainingwitness.The
policethentookhimto"InterrogationRoomNo.2"ofthedetectivebureau.Therehewas
questionedbytwopoliceofficers.TheofficersadmittedattrialthatMirandawasnotadvised
[66]
thathehadarighttohaveanattorneypresent.
Twohourslater,theofficersemergedfrom
theinterrogationroomwithawrittenconfessionsignedbyMiranda.Atthetopofthestatement
wasatypedparagraphstatingthattheconfessionwasmadevoluntarily,withoutthreatsor
promisesofimmunityand"withfullknowledgeofmylegalrights,understandinganystatementI
makemaybeusedagainstme."Mirandawasfoundguiltyofkidnappingandrape.

3.
Hewassentencedto20to30years'imprisonmentoneachcountofkidnappingandrape.He
thenappealed,butthatcourtupheldthelowercourt'sdecision.Fromthereheappealedtothe
USsupremecourt.

4.
Shouldtheconfessionbethrownout?Whatdopeopleneedtoknowbeforetheyare
interrogated?

5.
Hisconfessionneedstobethrownout.

6.
Fromthetestimonyoftheofficersandbytheadmissionofrespondent,itisclearthatMiranda
wasnotinanywayapprisedofhisrighttoconsultwithanattorneyandtohaveonepresent
duringtheinterrogation,norwashisrightnottobecompelledtoincriminatehimselfeffectively
protectedinanyothermanner.Withoutthesewarningsthestatementswereinadmissible.The
merefactthathesignedastatementwhichcontainedatypedinclausestatingthathehad"full
knowledge"ofhis"legalrights"doesnotapproachtheknowingandintelligentwaiverrequiredto
relinquishconstitutionalrights.

Thislong,55pagedocumenthasseveraldifferentfactpatternsandrationales.Inessenceit
boilsdowntowhatshouldapersonknowbeforebeinginterrogated?Thisisthefoundationof
theMirandaRights.Theyareneatlysummarizedas

Tosummarize,weholdthatwhenanindividualistakenintocustodyorotherwisedeprivedof
hisfreedombytheauthoritiesinanysignificantwayandissubjectedtoquestioning,the
privilegeagainstselfincriminationisjeopardized.Proceduralsafeguardsmustbeemployedto
protecttheprivilege,andunlessotherfullyeffectivemeansareadoptedtonotifythepersonof
hisrightofsilenceandtoassurethattheexerciseoftherightwillbescrupulouslyhonored,the
followingmeasuresarerequired.Hemustbewarnedpriortoanyquestioningthathehasthe

righttoremainsilent,thatanythinghesayscanbeusedagainsthiminacourtoflaw,thathe
hastherighttothepresenceofanattorney,andthatifhecannotaffordanattorneyonewillbe
appointedforhimpriortoanyquestioningifhesodesires.Opportunitytoexercisetheserights
mustbeaffordedtohimthroughouttheinterrogation.Aftersuchwarningshavebeengiven,and
suchopportunityaffordedhim,theindividualmayknowinglyandintelligentlywaivetheserights
andagreetoanswerquestionsormakeastatement.Butunlessanduntilsuchwarningsand
waiveraredemonstratedbytheprosecutionattrial,noevidenceobtainedasaresultof
interrogationcanbeusedagainsthim.

Thecourtbreaksdowneachandeveryoneofthedifferentpartsoftheright.Includingwhythey
areneeded,thehistorythatrequireseachone,andsoon.Forthepurposeofthisbriefthey
arenotneeded.Abriefthatincludedallofthatinformationwouldhardlybeabrief.

ThecourtgoesontohammeroutallremainingquestionsregardingtheRight.Theystatethat
thepolicesjobwon'tbeharmedbyforcingMiranda,thatunlesstheserightsarereadand
understoodaperson'sconfessioncannotbeused,andsoon.

7.

MR.JUSTICEHARLAN,whomMR.JUSTICESTEWARTandMR.JUSTICEWHITE
hadthefirstdissent.InthislongandcomplicateddissentJusticeHarlanisbasically
sayingthatthecourtisexceedingthepowerithas.Hecloseswiththequote"This
Courtisforeveraddingnewstoriestothetemplesofconstitutionallaw,andthetemples
haveawayofcollapsingwhenonestorytoomanyisadded."

MR.JUSTICEWHITE,withwhomMR.JUSTICEHARLANandMR.JUSTICE
STEWARTcontributedtothenextdissent.Thisisanotherlongdissentthathasseveral
parts,butatthebaseofitallisaconstructionistargument.JusticeWhitearguesthat
thereisnoconstitutionalbasisforwhatthecourthasruledontoday.Thereareno
mirandarightsintheconstitution,thereforetheycannotbearight.Thecourtis
oversteppingitsbounds.Heclosesbysayingthattheconfessionswerevoluntary.