1. Interrogation Class 15

2. Confession and Immaturity • Haley v Ohio • 15 year old “lad” interrogated starting at midnight, denied him access to counsel, confronted him with evidence of co-defendants’ confessions, leading to confession at 5AM • Ruled “involuntary” by U.S. Supreme Court

3. Gallegos v. Colorado • Confession of 14 year old ruled involuntary because he did know or understand his rights, was not the “equal” of the police, was unable to protect himself • Key issue in both Gallegos and Haley is youthfulness and “voluntariness” of confessions • Youthfulness is a “special circumstance” requiring the law’s close scrutiny and special protections • Miranda protects juveniles from self-incrimination, and custodial interrogation is deemed inherently coercive

4. Fare v Michael C. • Defendant interrogated after Miranda warnings by two police officers. Defendant waived right to counsel, but asked to speak with his probation officer. Police refused to contact PO, and interrogation proceeded and defendant made incriminating statements. • Court ruled that request to speak with PO was not the same as a request to speak with an attorney • BUT, totality of circumstances analysis suggested that confession was not voluntary

5. Powell, in his dissent: • Although the defendant had prior brushes with the law, and was under the supervision by a probation officer, the…transcript of his interrogation… demonstrates that he was immature, emotional, and uneducated, and therefore likely to be vulnerable to the skillful, two-on-one, repetitive style of interrogation to which he was subjected….[t]he interrogating police officer did not exercise the “greatest of care” to assure that the respondent’s “admission was voluntary”….I am not satisfied that this…16 year old boy…was subjected to a fair interrogation free from inherently coercive circumstances…

6. If juveniles are immature generally, do Miranda warnings adequately protect their rights? • Owing to their immaturity and diminished competence, do juveniles have the capacity to understand Miranda warnings? To act on these warnings by requesting the presence of an attorney, perhaps risking the displeasure of the police authorities? Are they able to resist enticements to avoid attorneys (e.g., in return for a promise of freedom)? • Does Miranda apply in school settings? • Should the school principal in T.L.O. have offered to have an attorney present? • Does interrogation by a school authority qualify as “inherently coercive”? Are school officials de facto law enforcement officers when interrogating students? • Should questioning by a school authority in the principal’s office or security office deemed custodial”?

7. Recent Case • Lucresha Murray • Female, 11 years, charged with capital murder in death of 2 year old female • No prior contact with juvenile justice system • Stomped to death, sneaker imprints on victim’s body were linked to defendant • Interrogation: 2.5 hours, videotaped, conducted at group home facility where defendant was placed following her arrest, neither parents nor attorney present • Detectives read Miranda warnings from printed card, did not ask if Lucresha understood them and could repeat them back to detectives. Detectives did not affirmatively ask if she wanted to have an attorney present.

8. Detectives suggested a scenario that Lucresha confirmed (after repeated questioning), then added a hypothetical that Lucresha said was “possible” as accidental contact. • She had reading and comprehension difficulties while trying to understand the confession she was about to sign • Was Lucresha in custody? Did Miranda apply? Was confession obtained under duress? Was Lucresha competent? To comprehend Miranda warning? To resist pressures of police and suggestion? To comprehend her confession? for what else? • TX Ct of Appeals reversed the second conviction, ruling that the age of the child was relevant in determining whether the child was “in custody” and what rights therefore attached. Standard is…… “whether…a reasonable child of the same age would believe her freedom of movement was significantly restricted”