Other grounds for suppressing confessions

• Author: Deja Vishny
• Pages: 673-706

SUPPRESSING

CONFESSIONS:

OTHER GROUNDS

12-1

CHAPTER 12

OTHER GROUNDS FOR

SUPPRESSING CONFESSIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. FAILURE TO RECORD INTERROGATION

A. Governing Law

§12:01 State Courts Take Different Approaches

§12:02 In Federal Court

B. Litigating the Recordation Requirement

1. Ground Rules

§12:03 Don’t be Dissuaded by Prior Adverse Rulings

§12:04 Making an Argument Under Your State’s Constitution

2. Elements for Success

a. The Right Judge

§12:05 Independent-Thinking Judge Will Create Strong Factual Record

b. Strong Cross-Examination of Interrogators

§12:06 The “I Don’t Know” Cross

§12:07 Time Unaccounted For

§12:08 Techniques Jurors Find Exculpatory

§12:09 Recording in Other Contexts

§12:10 Ease and Low Cost of Recording

c. Client Testimony

§12:11 Detailed Testimony Is the Strongest Testimony

§12:12 Credibility Is Key

d. Expert Testimony

§12:13 Educate Judge About Fallibilities of Human Memory and Perception

III. CONTAMINATION

§12:14 Cutting Edge Litigation

§12:15 Interrelationship Between Suppression, Contamination and False Confessions

§12:16 Compare to Eyewitness Identif‌ications

§12:17 Move to Exclude Under the Rules of Evidence

§12:18 Framing Your Motion

[§§12:19-12:24 Reserved]

SUPPRESSING

CONFESSIONS:

OTHER GROUNDS

Suppressing Criminal Evidence 12-2

IV. SIXTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

A. Right to Counsel

1. Governing Law

§12:25 Relationship to Fifth Amendment/Miranda Rights

§12:26 Relationship to State Constitutional Rights

§12:27 Scope of Suppression Remedy for Violation

2. Motions to Suppress for Sixth Amendment Violation

§12:28 Police Initiated Contact with Client

§12:28.1 Prosecutor-Initiated Contact Violated State Ethical Rules

§12:29 Client Abandoned by Former Counsel

§12:30 “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Violation

B. Statements to Snitches

§12:31 Governing Law

§12:32 Litigating Statements to Snitches as Sixth Amendment Violations

[§§12:33-12:34 Reserved]

V. FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

§12:35 Governing Law

§12:36 Grounds for Suppression of Resulting Statements

[§§12:37-12:39 Reserved]

VI. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR SUPPRESSION ARISING OUT OF STATUTES AND CASE LAW

A. Suppression for Delay in Presentment

§12:40 McNabb-Mallory Rule in Federal Court

§12:41 In State Court

B. Proximity in Time of Interrogation to Lie Detector Test

§12:42 Statements Made Proximate to “Honesty Test” Generally Admissible

§12:43 Factors Court May Consider

§12:44 Litigation Tips

C. Denial of Telephone Call Post-Arrest

D. Medical Privilege

§12:45 Uncommon Occurrence

§12:46 Grounds for Suppression

VII. SUPPRESSING THE STATEMENT OF A WITNESS

A. Governing Principles

§12:47 Argue Due Process Violation

§12:48 Factors Courts Will Consider

B. Litigating Suppression of a Witness’ Statement

§12:49 Interview the Witness

§12:50 Obtain Recording of Statement, if Any

§12:51 Obtain and Review Other Corroborating Documents

§12:52 Prepare Witness to Testify

§12:53 Questions for Direct Examination

VIII. FORMS

Form 12-1 Motion in Limine to Exclude Unreliable Statements

Form 12-2 Motion to Suppress Confession Due to Delay in Presentment (McNabb-Mallory)

Form 12-3 Motion to Suppress Statement by Probationer to P.O. or Therapist

Form 12-4 Motion to Suppress Juvenile Witness’ Statement

SUPPRESSING

CONFESSIONS:

OTHER GROUNDS

12-3 Other Grounds For Suppressing Confessions §12:01

I. INTRODUCTION

Most confession suppression litigation is centered on litigating violations of Miranda and voluntariness. There

are, though, some additional grounds to suppress confessions that should be considered when supported by the

facts or if you believe you are in the right court to advance new theories and (hopefully) create positive changes

in the law. These are discussed below.

II. FAILURE TO RECORD INTERROGATION

In appropriate cases, consider moving to exclude your client’s confession because law enforcement failed to

record the interrogation in its entirety. You will have the best chances of success when the following three factors

come together:

• The prosecution evidence is weak enough to raise serious doubts about the truthfulness of the confession;

• Your client is sympathetic; and

• The trial judge is open-minded enough to doubt the police version of what occurred.

A. Governing Law

§12:01 State Cour ts Take Different Approaches

Recording complete interrogations is becoming more common all the time. Two state Supreme Courts, Minne-

sota and Wisconsin, used their supervisory authority to require electronic recording of all in custody interrogations

in order for a defendant’s statement to be admissible in court. See State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994);

State v. Jerrell C.J., 699 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2005). New Hampshire, in State v. Barnett, 789 A.2d 629 (N.H. 2001),

went a different direction and used its supervisory authority to bar the admission of selective recordings of state-

ments; a recorded statement is only admissible if the interrogation is recorded in its entirety, after reading Miranda

rights. New Hampshire does not, however, suppress the statement; police testimony regarding what the defendant

stated is still admissible.

More recently, in State v. Munir, 209 A.3d 545 (N.H. 2019), in a concurring opinion, one of the justices



of being able to view a video-recording of the interrogation. The concurrence contained following compilation of

states that mandate recordation by either court decisions or statute:

    

form or another, custodial interrogations to be recorded. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 4.7 (Arkansas); Cal. Penal

Code §859.5 (2017) (California); Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-601 (2016) (Colorado); Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-



Stat. 405/5-401.5 and 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/103-2.1 (2017) (Illinois); Ind. R. Evid. 617 (Indiana); Kan.

Stat. Ann. §22-4620 (2017) (Kansas); Me. Stat. tit. 25, §2803-B (2015) (Maine); Md. Code Ann., Crim.

Proc. §§2-402 and 2-403 (2008) (Maryland); Mich. Comp. Laws §§763.7-11 (2013) (Michigan); Mo.

Rev. Stat. §590.700 (2017) (Missouri); Mont. Code Ann. §§46-4-406-411 (2009) (Montana); Neb. Rev.

Stat. §§29-4501-4508 (2008) (Nebraska); N.J. Court Rules 3:17 (New Jersey); [**29] N.M. Stat. Ann.

§29-1-16 (2006) (New Mexico); N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §60.45 (2018) (New York); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann.

§15A-211 (2011) (North Carolina); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §133.400 (2018) (Oregon); Tex. Crim. Proc. Code

Ann. art. 2.32 and art. 38.22, §3 (2017) (Texas); Utah R. Evid. 616 (Utah); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, §5585

(2015) (Vermont); Wis. Stat. Ann. §968.073 (2019) (Wisconsin); Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156, 1159



State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587, 592 (Minn. 1994).”

Id. at 557.

When states mandate recording and police fail to record, the usual remedy is a jury instruction about the failure

to do so. Check your state’s statutes regrading the remedy; some jurisdictions provide for excluding the statement.