User:ReneeChecinski/sandbox

This will be the shared Sandbox for the article Self-Incrimination.ReneeChecinski (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

In terms of my contribution to this article, I hope to improve the way in which expertise is conveyed to audiences who are not specialized in this subject matter. My main focus is to edit the piece in such a way that the information is better comprehensible to anyone that wants to read it. It is important to consider the way that certain aspects of linguistic complexity, like wording or syntax can alter one's ability to educate a lay audiences. If possible, multiple embedding, and excessively complex word order will be eliminated. I do not believe this article poses an issue with neutrality. However, measures will be taken to avoid biases towards any particular positions. Wikipedia discusses this topic strictly in terms of the facts. On the other hand, during class discussion, Self-Incrimination was discussed in terms of its linguistic and pragmatic contexts, with reference to power imbalances. The presentation of this information in such a manner may result in the formation of biases during the learning process. Wikipedia is not interested in reporting the differing perspectives of a subject matter, but rather in creating a comprehensive, objective understanding of it. Since the creation of this article, it is possible that some information has become outdated. During the editing process, I plan on researching if any significant alterations to the rules and regulations of Self-Incrimination have been made in order to ensure that all of the article's information is both accurate and up to date. ReneeChecinski (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

ReneeChecinski (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Relevant Sources:

Flumenbaum, Martin, Karp, Brad S. Court Shifts on Effect of Using Handcuffs During Police Encounters.(U.S. Court of Appeals). New York Law Journal. January 30, 2019.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-1222/17-1222-2018-12-17.html

ReneeChecinski (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Potential Additional Contribution for Court Shifts on Effect of Using Handcuffs During Police Encounters

This contribution would likely be added at the bottom of the section titled, United States Law

The United States Supreme Court rulings of Miranda v. Arizona and Terry v. Ohio leave questions about the types of conduct that are appropriate for both the protection of the public, and criminal suspects' constitutional rights. The use of handcuffs on a suspect during a Terry stop infringes on these Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. During the action of handcuffing a suspect, a custodial environment is created, thereby invoking the information of that individual's Miranda rights. The Second Circuit Court maintained the notion that by utilizing handcuffs during a Terry stop, that stop is then automatically transformed into an arrest, thus warranting the reading of Miranda rights, up until the decision of US versus Fiseku.

In holdings of U.S. versus Fiseku, the defendant argues that the officers’ use of handcuffs convert a Terry stop into an arrest without probable cause, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court ruled in disagreement with this matter, suggesting that there were unusual circumstances surrounding the investigatory stop, requiring the use of handcuffs in order to ensure the protection of those officers involved. This differs from Second Circuit court rulings of the past.

In the case of U.S vs. Newton, it was determined that a police officer is permitted to utilize handcuffs during a Terry stop if he or she has reason to believe that the detainee poses an immediate physical threat, and that by handcuffing the individual, the potential threat is diffused in the least invasive means possible. In the case of U.S. vs. Bailey, the Second Circuit court found the officers' initial stop to be constitutional, but decided that the events which transpired after handcuffing took place fell outside the realm of a constitutional Terry stop. This was the result of both suspects having already been patted down and deemed unarmed. At which point, the officers had no authority to handcuff either of these men, as they were already proved to be non-threatening.

In both cases, the Second Circuit court made the determination that the use of handcuffs converted these stops into arrests, and were grounds for Miranda. The ruling ofU.S. versus Fisekudisrupts this conversion trend by determining otherwise. The grounds for such a holding is unclear, especially provided the striking similarities between this court ruling and those of Newton and Bailey. The new verdict could potentially be instituted to enable police officials to impede on citizens' constitutional rights as long as the technique being used is considered to be less intrusive than that of an officer pulling his or her gun on an unarmed suspect.]ReneeChecinski (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is the paragraph format that is suggested, but it is a rough draft. Is it not factual enough? The article also mentions various court cases discussing the use of handcuffs during something known as "Terry stops" (I intend on defining), which inadvertently changes the stop into an arrest requiring the information of Miranda rights. I wonder if each case mentioned in the article should receive mentioned for its impacts on this issue? I also intend on delving deeper into the ruling of U.S. v. Fiseku that is mentioned in the resource. ReneeChecinski (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My contribution will be trying to provide specific examples of instances involving self-incrimination. Specific examples of cases where self-incrimination played a role in the conviction are integral to understanding the effects of self-incrimination Meganfink177 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Meganfink177 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Relevant Sources:

Macey, Jonathan R.; Miller, Geoffrey P. "Bank Failures, Risk Monitoring, and the Market for Bank Control," Columbia Law Review vol. 88, no. 6 (October 1988): p. 1153-1226. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/clr88&i=1236.

Anonymous. “Self-Incrimination.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 25 Jan. 2018, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination. Lore, Michelle. “Taking the Fifth: Cases Question Self-Incrimination.” Minnesota Lawyer (Minneapolis, MN), 2002. NewsBank.

Meganfink177 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC) I was thinking of adding an Examples section, and then adding this below:

One example of self-incrimination comes from the case State v. Hannon, where a man was convicted for burning down the apartment of and subsequently killing his girlfriend. He appealed the conviction on the grounds an incriminating statement he had made while being questioned by police had happened after he had asked for counsel in an unambiguous way. Because the police refused to halt questioning until counsel arrived, the court granted the appeal on the grounds of the suspect's Miranda rights not being respected. Another example of self-incrimination comes from the case In Re Contempt of Ecklund, where a juvenile who was convicted of being an accomplice to murder refused to testify at another accomplice's trial to avoid self-incrimination. The juvenile was held in contempt of court because she had testified at her own trial previously, but she filed for an appeal. It was granted because testifying at her first trial did not constitute waiving her Fifth Amendment rights for the later trial of another accomplice. Meganfink177 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Meganfink177 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC) The case Malloy v. Hogan in 1966 brought about the Supreme Court decision that in order to decide whether a confession was taken down correctly, the focus has to be on deciding if the confession voluntarily given and that there was no coercion. The case Griffin v. California in 1965 brought about the Supreme Court decision that the jury cannot be told that the defendant invoking his Fifth Amendment rights is evidence of his guilt. The case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 brought about the Supreme Court decision that if when being arrested the suspect is not told about his rights, then any self-incriminating statements the suspect makes cannot be submitted to court. The case Schmerber v. California in 1966 brought about the Supreme Court fine tweaking the right to not incriminate oneself. The defendant was driving when he crashed his car, and while at the hospital after his blood was tested and he was found to be over the legal alcohol limit. The Supreme Court decided that even though the police could not force the defendant to testify about his drunkenness, the blood evidence did not count as incriminating testimony or as an act or writing sample from the defendant, so it was still allowed to be submitted to the court. Meganfink177 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

My contribution will be more as a forensic analyst. In the analyst sense, much like Megan, I think adding examples really aids the learning process. I think that I want to add context in the historical sense, consequences globally without laws on self-incrimination. I also think some of the citations need to be checked. The section on Barron's law dictionary doesn't cite to the correct source or even provide a link. I will also check for redundancies to further streamline the article, which is a communication contribution. Marorzek (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Marorzek (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Resources:

Levy, Leonard W. “The Right Against Self-Incrimination: History and Judicial History.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 1, 1969, pp. 1–29. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2147044.

Langbein, John H. “The Historical Origins of the Privilege against Self-Incrimination at Common Law.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 92, no. 5, 1994, pp. 1047–1085. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1289628.

Marorzek (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Legal definitions and privileges is the first section I want to make edits to. I find this subsection to United States Law to be redundant. If anything, the Black's Law Dictionary can stay within the main section instead of having its own subsection. I want to get rid of the Barron's Law definition because it's redundant and there already is improper citation for that source (leads me to Black's Law). In the sections Indian law, English and Welsh law, and Scots law , I'm still in the process of looking for more specific dates in regards to self-incrimination laws. I find historical specifics like dates to be important and add to overall understanding.

Marorzek (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC) I've decided definitively I would like to get rid of the Legal definitions and privileges section for the reasons I already stated. For English and Welsh law I will amend the first sentence to say, "The right against self-incrimination originated in England and Wales as a common law privilege in the 17th century". I think this separates it a little more from US law. Source: Maclin, Tracey. “The Right to Silence V. the Fifth Amendment.(Policing the Police).” University of Chicago Legal Forum, University of Chicago Law School, Jan. 2016.

In that same section I will also amend a sentence about the right to infer and delete the final sentence, in order to make it flow better. "In other words, the jury is entitled to infer or not to infer that the accused fabricated the explanation at a later date, as he or she refused to provide the explanation during the time of the police questioning". I'm not 100% done with my research.

Marinaekladious (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)The language from Miranda states that if a suspect “indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wished to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning.” However, the requests for counsel must be unambiguous. Given the threshold-of-clarity, a request for counsel may not be upheld unless it is a direct and unambiguous request. This threshold of clarity does not guarantee the ceasing of interrogation, leaving room for the possibility of self-incrimination.

I'd potentially like to include examples of self-incrimination when it comes to police requesting to search a vehicle, example of Bustamante. Difference in ambiguity from the police perspective vs. the witness. I'm not sure if this will go too into depth or cause irrelevant clutter.Marinaekladious (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)