Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
Supreme Court Rules 29 1/2 hour dentention renders confession inadmissible
April 28, 2009
Topic: Criminal
The United State's Supreme Court ruled on April 6, 2009 in the case of Corley v. United States that both the oral and written confessions given by a defendant who was not brought before a magistrate for 29 ½ hours rendered the confession inadmissible because the confession violated 18 USC 3501 and the Court's previous decisions comprising the McNabb-Mallory rule.
Unlike what you see on television, the federal court system does not follow the more common Miranda system that most states follow when determining whether a confession is admissible or not. Most persons know the Miranda warnings and that a confession is not admissible unless the defendant is advised, among other things, of their right to remain silent and the rights to have an attorney present for questioning upon request. In the state systems, like those in Florida and Georgia, a defendant is not required to be brought in front of a magistrate within 6 hours like they are in the federal system. Therefore, state investigators have more time to get a defendant to confess to a crime before they are brought before a magistrate and meet their attorney, whether privately retained or court appointed. After that point, most attorneys tell the client to remain silent and questioning cannot continue unless the defendant specifically initiates contact with the police.
There were several interesting facts of the Corley decision, including requests made by the defendant to go to the hospital and not give a written confession until the defendant had a night to sleep on the decision despite having already given an oral confession. The United States Solicitor General tried to argue that because Miranda did not apply in federal system, the court only had to see if the confession was voluntary and to ignore the six hour requirement set forth in 18 USC 3501. The Supreme Court completely disagreed with the government's position saying the government's position would render 18 USC 3501 "nonsensical and superfluous."
This case represents a healthy continuation of the Court's protection of defendants in the area of confessions. Despite the Court's positions on many search and seizure cases, the Court seems to still be very supportive of a Defendant's right to be free from involuntary confessions. Many times the key to a government's case is the confession of the Defendant. A police officer must follow strict rules and guidelines before a confession is admissible.
If you have a case in state or federal court where a "confession" is central to the case against the Defendant, please contact us. While each case is different, our experience criminal defense attorneys, including a Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney are experienced attorneys who have been successful in numerous past cases involving Miranda issues. The confession may be able to be suppressed, and the chances of success of the Defendant may go up dramatically.
