Court cases for chapter 8

Supreme Court held that confession obtained through physical coercion violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision set a precedent for ensuring that confessions are obtained voluntarily and without coercion

• Brown v. Mississippi

• Ashcraft v. Tennesse

• Mallory v. US

• Escobedo v. Illinois

This case highlighted the issue of psychological coercion during the police interrogation. The court ruled that confessions extracted through psychological pressure or manipulation are also inadmissible, emphasizing the importance of protecting the suspect's mental state during questioning.

• Brown v. Mississippi

• Ashcraft v. Tennesse

• Mallory v. US

• Escobedo v. Illinois

The importance of promptly presenting suspects before a judicial officer following arrest. This requirement helps prevent prolonged detention without oversight, ensuring that suspects are not subjected to coercive interrogation tactics outside the purview of the judicial system

• Brown v. Mississippi

• McNabo v. US

• Mallory v. US

• Escobedo v. Illinois

The case focused on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and highlighted protections against interrogation after the initiation of criminal proceedings. The decision clarified that once criminal proceedings have begun, suspects have the right to counsel during questioning, reinforcing the importance of legal representation during critical stage of the criminal justice process

• Miranda v. Arizona

• McNabo v. US

• Mallory v. US

• Massiah v. US

emphasized the need to prevent undue delay in presenting suspects before a judicial officer following arrest. Delayed presentation can increase the risk of coercive interrogation tactics and undermine the integrity of confession obtained during prolonged detention.

• Brown v. Mississippi

• McNabo v. US

• Mallory v. US

• Escobedo v. Illinois

The case recognized the right to counsel during police interrogation. The court held that suspects have a constitutional right to consult with an attorney before questioning, marking a significant development in safeguarding suspect's rights during the interrogation process

• Miranda v. Arizona

• McNabo v. US

• Mallory v. US

• Escobedo v. Illinois

The case regarding the rights of suspects during interrogation. The decision established the requirement for " " warnings before custodial interrogation ensuring that suspects are informed of their rights to remain silent and to legal counsel.

• Miranda v. Arizona

• McNabo v. US

• Mallory v. US

• Escobedo v. Illinois

The case serves as a poignant example of the risks associated with false confession and the impact of coercive interrogation techniques. Despite innocence, individuals may confess to crimes they did not commit under pressure or manipulation by law enforcement

• Miranda v. Arizona

• McNabo v. US

• Central Park 5

• Escobedo v. Illinois

Ensures that confession are obtained voluntarily and without coercion. Court assess the totality of circumstances surrounding the confession to determine its voluntariness considering factors such as the suspects mental state and presence of coercion

• 14th Amendment Due Process Clause

• Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

guarantees (blank) at critical stages of criminal proceedings including police interrogations

• 14th Amendment Due Process Clause

• Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel