Connection lost
Server error
Spano v. New York Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: After being indicted and surrendering with counsel, a defendant was interrogated overnight. Police denied his requests for his lawyer and used his police-officer friend to emotionally manipulate him, rendering his subsequent confession involuntary and inadmissible under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal Significance: This case signaled the Court’s growing scrutiny of post-indictment interrogations. While decided on voluntariness grounds, the concurrences forcefully argued for a Sixth Amendment right to counsel that attaches at indictment, foreshadowing the landmark ruling in Massiah v. United States.
Spano v. New York Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Vincent Spano was indicted for first-degree murder. Accompanied by his attorney, he surrendered to authorities. His attorney instructed him to remain silent and then left. Immediately, the police and an Assistant District Attorney began a persistent, eight-hour interrogation that continued overnight. Spano, who had a history of emotional instability, repeatedly refused to answer questions, citing his attorney’s advice. His multiple requests to contact his retained lawyer were denied. The authorities then enlisted Gaspar Bruno, Spano’s childhood friend who was a rookie police officer, to aid in the interrogation. On instructions from his superiors, Bruno falsely told Spano that Spano’s initial phone call to him had jeopardized Bruno’s job and family. After four separate sessions of such emotional appeals from Bruno, Spano confessed in the early morning hours. The confession was admitted at trial, and Spano was convicted and sentenced to death.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the use of a confession obtained through persistent post-indictment interrogation, which included denying the defendant’s requests for his retained counsel and using psychological coercion through a friend, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes. The confession was involuntary and its admission violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, s
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the use of a confession obtained through persistent post-indictment interrogation, which included denying the defendant’s requests for his retained counsel and using psychological coercion through a friend, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This case represents a high-water mark for the "totality of the circumstances" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Legal Rule
A confession is involuntary and its admission into evidence violates the Fourteenth Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitatio
Legal Analysis
The Court applied the "totality of the circumstances" test to determine the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A confession is involuntary under the Fourteenth Amendment if the suspect’s