Also known as: incriminate · incriminates · incriminated · incriminating · inculpatory evidence
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Evidence that tends to connect a person to the commission of a crime or to provide a lead to such evidence.
Isabella Ingram was indicted for falsifying rebate applications. An investigator visited her office claiming to discuss new filings but steered the conversation to prior paperwork. Ingram made statements about the applications. The statements constituted incriminating evidence obtained after the right to counsel attached.
Ilana Isaacs was indicted on fraud charges. Officers placed an informant in her cell. The informant only listened and took no steps to prompt remarks. The informant's observations did not produce incriminating evidence because no deliberate elicitation occurred.
Ivy Ibarra and a co-defendant were indicted for conspiracy. Police arranged to record their jail conversation about the charged offense. The recording captured incriminating evidence that violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Israel Irving was in custody before any charges were filed. Detectives questioned him about a theft without counsel present. The resulting statements were not incriminating evidence subject to Sixth Amendment limits because adversary proceedings had not begun.
Igor Ito was stopped on reasonable suspicion. During a lawful Terry patdown an officer felt a small wrapped package whose incriminating character as contraband was immediately apparent. The officer seized the package without further manipulation and the item became admissible incriminating evidence.
Imani Idowu was taken into custody for questioning about a robbery. Officers elicited statements without advising her of rights. The statements supplied incriminating evidence that required suppression under the Fifth Amendment.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View caseThe Sixth Amendment bars such evidence when police deliberately elicit statements after the right to counsel has attached without a waiver. This protection applies only after formal adversary proceedings begin.
Supporting sources
No. An informant must take affirmative steps beyond listening that are designed to elicit incriminating remarks. Passive presence alone does not produce protected incriminating evidence.
Supporting sources
The incriminating character of the item must be immediately apparent from its feel without additional manipulation. Exceeding the scope of a lawful patdown renders the seizure unlawful.
Supporting sources
No. The right attaches only after adversary judicial proceedings have begun. Pre-charge custodial interrogation is governed by Fifth Amendment rules instead.
Supporting sources
…While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the…