Criminal Procedure Question Analysis
Duce and Cody were arrested for an armed robbery. Duce was taken to the police station, where she was interrogated without Miranda warnings. (Violation of the D's Fifth Amendment Miranda rights, exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, right to counsel) After three hours of questioning, a police officer asked Duce if she would consent to a search of her automobile. (Consent but not voluntary) Duce consented, and a search of her car revealed a handgun and items stolen in the robbery, which were seized by the officers. (Fruit of the poisonous tree) When told what the officers found, Duce confessed to driving the getaway car in the robbery.
Cody, who did not know that Duce had confessed, then confessed and named Duce as the driver of the getaway car.
At their joint trial on a charge of robbery, Duce moved to exclude her confession from evidence based solely on the failure of the police to give her Miranda warnings. Based only on that violation, the court granted the motion to exclude her confession.
Duce also moved to exclude from evidence the handgun and the stolen items seized from her automobile, claiming that she was not aware that she had a right to refuse consent to search. The prosecutor conceded that the police had no authority to search the car absent consent, but asserted that Duce's consent was obtained without coercion. The court denied the motion, finding that the consent was voluntary.
The handgun and the stolen items seized from Duce's car were admitted into evidence at the joint trial of Duce and Cody over objections by each defendant. (Cody has no standing against the illegal seizure) Cody's confession, redacted to eliminate any reference to Duce, was admitted into evidence against Cody.
At trial Duce testified, denying that she drove the getaway car and that she knew the handgun or the stolen items were in her car. She testified that she had loaned her car to Cody on the day of the robbery. In rebuttal the prosecutor called a police officer who testified, over objection by Duce, to the contents of Duce's confession (inadmissible evidence admitted for impeachment) and to the contents of Cody's complete unredacted confession implicating Duce as the driver of the getaway car. (Confrontation clause)
Assume that in each instance all appropriate constitutional and evidentiary objections were made.
1. Did the court err in admitting the handgun and the stolen items seized from Duce's car against Duce and Cody? (#1) Discuss.
2. Did the court err in admitting the police officer's testimony about Duce's confession? (#2) Discuss.
3. Did the court err in admitting the police officer's testimony about Cody's complete unredacted confession? (#3) Discuss.
Outline
Answers
I. The Handgun and the Stolen Items
Duce and Cody were tried together for armed robbery. The court admitted the handgun and the stolen items that were found in Duce’s car. Both defendants objected to the admission of this evidence.
A. Duce
Duce will raise constitutional objections to the admission of this evidence based on her 5th and 4th Amendment rights.
5th Amendment
Duce’s first argument is that these items are fruits of the poisonous tree, tainted by the officer’s violation of Miranda. All criminal suspects are protected by the 5th Amendment, which forbids the prosecution from compelling a defendant to testify against herself. In this case, Duce was interrogated for three hours without being given Miranda warnings. The court granted Duce’s motion to exclude the confession.
The court need not exclude the physical evidence, because the 5th Amendment protects against forced testimony. It does not extend to require the exclusion of physical evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation.
4th Amendment
Duce’s second argument against admission of this evidence comes from the 4th Amendment, which protects defendants from evidence that is the product of unreasonable searches and seizures. Duce had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her car. A police search satisfies the state action requirement. Law enforcement failed to obtain a warrant, which they easily could have done. It is true that Duce consented to the search but this consent was not voluntary. Duce was under arrest and subject to custodial interrogation for three hours. The prosecution cannot be allowed to profit from the abuse of the fundamental constitutional rights of criminal suspects.
Duce has argued that she was not aware that she had a right to refuse to consent to a search. This argument alone is not enough to vitiate her consent, but when the whole situation is examined it is apparent that law enforcement has abused their authority enough to justify exclusion of the evidence.
The court should have excluded the handgun and the stolen items from the case against Duce.
B. Cody- No standing
Cody was arrested as well. No facts are present to suggest that Cody had any justification for excluding this evidence. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in Duce’s car. Cody cannot complain if unlawful police conduct against Duce unearths evidence of Cody’s guilt. Cody’s lack of standing will prevent Cody from making any persuasive arguments against the admission of the handgun and the stolen items from the prosecution’s case.
C. Conclusion
Duce’s consent to the warrantless search of his car was coerced. The court should not have admitted these items against her. Cody lacks standing to contest the admission of the evidence.
II. The Police Officer’s testimony re: Duce’s confession
Duce confessed to driving the getaway car in the robbery after a long interrogation and after being confronted with the existence of the handgun and the stolen items. The prosecution was allowed to use this confession in rebuttal to Duce’s testimony at trial.
A. Duce
5th Amendment- Miranda
The court excluded Duce’s confession from the prosecution’s case in chief. This was proper, because the confession was extracted by the police in violation of Miranda. At trial, Duce testified in her own defense. She denied that she drove the getaway car and that she knew the handgun and stolen items were in her car. She said she’d loaned the car to Cody on the day of the robbery.
It is settled law that otherwise, inadmissible confessions are admissible to rebut and impeach a defendant’s testimony at trial. Here, no facts are present to suggest that the court acted improperly in admitting testimony about Duce’s confession in rebuttal.
6th Amendment- Right to counsel
Duce was without counsel during her three-hour interrogation. He has been advised of his right to counsel and he might have exercised it. This was another appropriate reason to exclude Duce’s confession from the prosecution’s case in chief. Again, however, the evidence would be admissible as part of the prosecution’s rebuttal.
B. Cody- Apparently not mentioned by Duce
Duce’s confession apparently did not refer to Cody. Again, Cody lacks standing. Furthermore, Duce in on the witness stand and is subject to confrontation by Cody’s lawyer, so no 6th Amendment issues are present.
C. Conclusion
The court did not err in admitting
III. The Police Officer’s testimony re: Cody’s Unredacted Confession
In the prosecution’s case in chief, Cody’s confession was redacted to omit the fact that Cody had named Duce as the getaway driver. Once Duce took the stand to deny her involvement in the armed robbery, the prosecution was allowed to present testimony about Cody’s unredacted confession.
A. Duce’s 6th Amendment right to confront
The 6th Amendment to the Constitution provides that a criminal defendant has the right to confront adverse witnesses. Cody’s unredacted confession is highly prejudicial to Duce. Here, Cody has not taken the witness stand, so Duce cannot confront and cross-examine him about his confession.
Duce’s decision to testify in her own defense does not cause her to surrender her right to confront adverse witnesses. It is reasonable for Duce to be challenged on the stand with her own confession, but there is no legal justification for Duce to be impeached with Cody’s out-of-court confession.
C. Conclusion
It was clear error for the court to admit the police officer’s testimony about Cody’s complete unredacted confession.