Showing 1 - 4 of 4 results
Waiving Miranda & False Confessions with Dr. Bruce Frumkin [Engage & Exchange Discussion Series]
Dr. Bruce Frumkin joins the NACDL Engage & Exchange Discussion Series with host Mark Satawa for Competency to Waive Miranda Rights and False/Coerced Confessions: The Use and Misuse of Expert Testimony.
Wortham v. New York
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: The New York Court of Appeals held that law enforcement may question an individual in custody regarding “pedigree” information without violating Miranda if the questions asked are not “a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation.” Pet. App. 7a. As the Petition explains, the Court should review this holding because it reinforces a deep and abiding conflict of authority regarding the scope of the “booking exception” to Miranda, Pet. 7-12, and because the New York Court of Appeals erred in its approach to that exception, Pet. 12-15.
Berghuis v. Thompkins
Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union in support of respondent Van Chester Thompkins.
Argument: Prior to a 2 ½ hour interrogation, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and acknowledged that he understood them. Although he did not formally invoke his right to remain silent, he remained virtually silent throughout questioning until finally a detective testified that he asked Thompkins whether he had asked God to forgive him for “shooting that boy down,” and he answered “yes.” Brief argues that Thompkins effectively invoked his right to remain silent by remaining silent during the interrogation and that any “implied waiver” of that right must occur much more quickly than the purported waiver on these facts.