Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Arizona v. Fulminante

No description

Lenny Morales

on 19 December 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Arizona v. Fulminante

Arizona vs. Fulminante

After Oreste Fulminante's 11-year old stepdaughter was murdered, he moved states and was convicted of an unrelated crime.
While in prison, he became friends with Anthony Sarivola, an officer posing as an inmate. Sarivola told Fulminante that he was getting rough treatment from other inmates because of the rumor that he was a child murderer, and offered him protection in exchange for the truth.
Fulminante admitted that he had killed the girl and provided details about the crime.
Case basics
*Fulminante admitted to commiting the crime
*Court denied that, and his motion to supress
*The Supreme Court decided that the confession was indeed coerced
Petitioner: Arizona
Respondent: Oreste Fulminante
Decided By: Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)
Opinion: 499 U.S. 279 (1991)
Argued: Wednesday, October 10, 1990
Decided: Tuesday, March 26, 1991
Advocates: Barbara M. Jarrett
(Senior Assistant Attorney General of Arizona, argued the cause for petitioner)
Paul J. Larkin, Jr.
(argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)
Stephen R. Collins
(by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent )
Tags: Criminal Procedure

*Fulminate argued that he said that to get out of prison
*Fulminate might have been subjected to violence if he didn't confess, a coerced confession
*The court needed to hold a new trial because a harmless error analysis was inappropriate for the situation
*The State Supreme Court held that the confession was coerced and that this Court's precedent precluded the use of harmless-error analysis in such a case.
*The trial court denied his motion to suppress, inter alia, the confession to Sarivola, rejecting his contention that it was coerced and thus barred by the (?) and Fourteenth Amendments
*He was sentenced to death.
*There was a new trial but the decison was still the same
Similar cases
*Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)
Petitioners were convicted following a California state criminal trial during which the prosecutor, as then permitted by a state constitutional provision, extensively commented on their failure to testify.
*Payne v. Arkansas - 356 U.S. 560 (1958)
Petitioner was denied due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, and then forced to confess to the crime.
* Miranda v. Arizona - 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Miranda kidnapped and raped a girl. This created the Miranda warning, which states that admission of a coerced confession could be considered harmless error.

Impacts of the case and precedent
*The Supreme Court held that a harmless error analysis should be applied to any allegedly coerced confession.
*This case created a new precedent: That a coerced confession used in a trial does not always change a conviction.
What is the amendment?
It is the 5th amendment!!!
The government cannot try a defendant for the same crime more than once. This prevents double jeopardy. It inhibits the government from using its power.
Thanks for listening!!!
Cenicola, J. (1992). "Arizona v. Fulminante: Accusation of Inquisition". New England Law Review 27: 383.
"Ann Arbor Law." Ann Arbor Law. Wordpress.com, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.
"Fifth Amendment." LII. Law.cornell.edu, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.
"TatWZA." In Flex We Trust RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.
Kenkel R. Kenneth. "Arizona v. Fulminante : Wheres the harm in harmless error?" LexisNexis. LexisNexis. n.d. Wen. 15 Dec. 2013
"Arizona v. Fulminate" Oyez Chicago Kent College of Law. Oyez, inc. n.d. Web. 16 Dec.2013.
"Miranda v. Arizona" Oyez Chicago Kent College of Law. Oyez, Inc. n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
*The Court found that "it was fear of physical violence, absent protection from his friend Sarivola, which motivated Fulminante to confess."
* It maintained that a "successful prosecution depended on the jury's believing the two confessions."
Questioned/commited to crime in jail, then reported to Federal Beraeu of Investigation
Fulminante was sent for trial at the county court. He argued about his confessions. He was sentenced to death.
The Supreme court of Arizona decided to take action, and the vote was the same but instead of a death sentence, Fulminante was sententenced to prison.
Path to the Supreme Court
Dissenting Opinions
Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IV, concluding that:

*Under harmless-error analysis, which the Court has determined applies to the admission of coerced confessions, post, at 306-312, the State has failed to meet its burden of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the admission of Fulminante's confession to Sarivola was harmless. Pp. 295-302.
Full transcript