Also known as:two step inquiry · two-step inquiries · two-step test · two-part inquiry
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A method of legal analysis that resolves a question by proceeding through two sequential steps. The first step examines an objective threshold condition. The second step applies an independent judgment or additional test to determine the ultimate legal consequence.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Prison Interview Custody Analysis
Tyrone Tran, already serving a sentence, was taken from his housing unit to a closed visiting room where two agents questioned him for three hours about new financial crimes. Agents told him participation was voluntary but kept the door closed with a guard outside and referenced impacts on his release date. A court applying the two-step inquiry first asks whether a reasonable person would feel free to end the questioning and leave. Because the answer is no, the court then determines whether the setting created pressures equivalent to station-house interrogation.
Eighth Amendment Punishment Review
Tara Tran was convicted of child rape and sentenced to death under a state statute. The court first surveys legislative enactments and state practices across the country to identify any national consensus against the punishment. Finding such a consensus, the court then exercises its independent judgment to decide whether the sentence is disproportionate to the crime.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Study Supplements
Kennedy v. Louisiana554 U.S. 407, 128 S.Ct. 2641, 171 L.Ed.2d 525 (2008)
Identification Procedure Challenge
Taliah Tang moved to suppress an eyewitness identification made after police showed the witness a single suspect in a parking lot. The court first determines whether the procedure was unnecessarily suggestive. Finding it was, the court next evaluates whether the suggestiveness rendered the identification unreliable under the totality of the circumstances.
Perry v. New Hampshire132 S. Ct. 716, 738-739 (2012)
Selective Prosecution Discovery
Tracy Torres claimed selective prosecution after being charged for failing to register for the draft. The court first requires the defendant to make a threshold showing of selective enforcement before ordering discovery. Only after that showing does the court weigh the government's interest in withholding the requested materials.
Wayte v. United States470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985)
Affirmative Defense Burden Shift
Tessa Takahashi was charged with murder and raised self-defense. The court first identifies which elements the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It then determines whether the state may constitutionally assign the burden of proving the affirmative defense to the defendant without violating due process.
Martin v. Ohio480 U.S. 228 (1987)
Competency Standard Application
Trevor Tate, facing capital charges, sought to waive counsel and plead guilty. The court first asks whether the defendant possesses the mental capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in his defense. It then applies the same standard to decide whether the waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary.
Godinez v. Moran509 U.S. 389 (1993)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What is the first step in the two-step inquiry for determining Miranda custody?+
The first step asks whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave. If the answer is yes, the analysis ends and there is no custody. If the answer is no, the court proceeds to the second step.
Supporting sources
Does incarceration alone establish Miranda custody under the two-step inquiry?+
No. The second step requires an additional finding that the environment presented the same inherently coercive pressures as station-house questioning. Ordinary prison conditions do not automatically satisfy this requirement.
Supporting sources
How does the two-step inquiry function in Eighth Amendment cases?+
The first step looks to objective indicia such as legislative enactments and state practice to determine whether a national consensus exists against the punishment. The second step requires the court to exercise its own independent judgment on whether the punishment is disproportionate.
Supporting sources
554 U.S. 407, 128 S. Ct. 2641, 171 L. Ed. 2d 525 (2008)Criminal Law
…543 U. S. 551 (2005), and Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U. S. 304 (2002). In applying this principle, the Court has established a two-step inquiry. First, the Court looks to “objective indicia of standards of decency,” including legislative enactments and state practice, to determine whether there is a national consensus against the…
Constitutional LawIndividual rights · Procedural due process, including the constitutional right to process in administrative hearingsNEXTGENIntermediate