Under the Due Process Clause, which statement should be excluded if it was involuntary, e.g., obtained as a result of threats or violence?

Under the Due Process Clause, which statement should be excluded if it was involuntary, e.g., obtained as a result of threats or violence?

• A. Any statement made involuntarily, e.g., as a result of threat of violence, should be excluded.
• B. A statement made voluntarily, without coercion, is admissible.
• C. A statement obtained during custodial interrogation with Miranda warnings is always admissible.
• D. Threats with coercion do not affect admissibility if the accused later waives rights.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is voluntariness. Under the Due Process Clause, a confession must be voluntary to be admissible. If threats or violence cause the suspect to confess, the statement isn’t the product of the person’s free will, so it must be excluded. Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation address the need for warnings and rights, but they do not cure a coerced confession; a statement obtained by coercion remains inadmissible even if the suspect later waives rights. A voluntary statement—made without coercion—is admissible, but the question focuses on involuntary statements, which are excluded. Therefore, a statement obtained involuntarily due to threats or violence should be excluded.

The key idea is voluntariness. Under the Due Process Clause, a confession must be voluntary to be admissible. If threats or violence cause the suspect to confess, the statement isn’t the product of the person’s free will, so it must be excluded. Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation address the need for warnings and rights, but they do not cure a coerced confession; a statement obtained by coercion remains inadmissible even if the suspect later waives rights. A voluntary statement—made without coercion—is admissible, but the question focuses on involuntary statements, which are excluded. Therefore, a statement obtained involuntarily due to threats or violence should be excluded.