Criminal Procedure Outline - Professor Fields 2021 - Campbell Law - Part 8

i. Griffin v. Illinois: Indigent def must be provided trial transcripts at state expense if necessary to effectuate appellate review

1. Imposes an affirmative duty to eliminate at least some inequalities not of the state’s own doing—level the playing field
   1. Black: “there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has”

ii. Douglas v. California: Defendant has a right to counsel for first level appeal

1. “but where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent has of right are decided w/o benefit of counsel, we think an unconstitutional line has been drawn between right and poor”

iii. Ross v. Moffitt: No right to appointed counsel on discretionary appeals

1. In trial, defendant needs an attorney as a shield, but on appeal, needs an attorney as a sword to “upset that prior determination of guilt” (Okay if states give this right, but not going to compel the states to do so)

iv. Right to counsel: Right to counsel for all felonies, both in federal and state court

1. For misdemeanors, determined by whether there’s actual imprisonment. If yes, then right to counsel attached

v. When does right attach: initial appearance before magistrate

vi. When does right end: have right in first level appeal, then ends (no right in discretionary appeal)

i. Massiah v. US (whether Massiah’s statement to Colson amounted to a lawful confession): Defendant’s statement was not a lawful confession

1. “petitioner was denied the basic protections of the 6th am when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel”
2. Once right to counsel attached, can’t question a suspect until they actively waive their right to counsel

*timing is key here: occurred after the right to an attorney (Gideon) had attached

ii. Escebedo v. Illinois: Where the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations . . . The suspect has requested and denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused has been denied the assistance of counsel

1. Pushing the line from Massiah (Massiah said a confession isn’t admissible if given w/o an attorney once the right to attorney attaches under Gideon, start of adversarial process)
2. Here, court moves the right to counsel for purposes of interrogation to custodial interrogation—when the individual is a suspect and is being questioned with the intent to obtain a confession
3. “petitioner had become the accused, and the purpose of the interrogation was to get him”
4. Balance of individual liberty vs. Security
   1. “a system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on the confession will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system which depends on extrinsic evidence independent secured through skillful investigation”
   2. “no system worth preserving should have to fear that if an accused is permitted to consult with a lawyer, he will become aware of, and exercise these rights

iii. Miranda v. Arizona: By its nature, a custodial interrogation is so coercive that an accused cannot voluntarily give a confession w/o law enforcement providing protective safeguards

1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination
2. Custodial interrogation: Questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
3. Protective safeguards:
   1. Right to remain silent
   2. Anything you say can and will be used against you
   3. Right to an attorney
   4. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided
4. Miranda Rule: custodial interrogation is inherently coercive. Consequently, protective safeguards must be in place before anyone can voluntarily give a confession. Those safeguards are the Miranda warnings