Anda di halaman 1dari 24

The Miranda Warnings

(1) Right to remain silent


(2) Anything you say can and will be used against you (3) Right to consult with an attorney and have an attorney present during questioning (4) That if you cannot afford one, a lawyer will be appointed What is the key concept that Miranda seeks to address?

What was the Courts Reasoning?


Custodial interrogation produces inherent compulsion. Procedural safeguards deemed adequate to dispel this inherent compulsion. When the safeguards are used, statements are not compelled and their use does not conflict with the 5th Amendment. Later Opinions: Warnings are prophylactic in naturenot themselves constitutionally compelled.

How have these Rules been explained in the cases?

Threshold Questions
What are the two initial questions in any Miranda analysis:
Was the suspect in custody? Was the suspect interrogated?

Custody
Formal arrest; OR
Its functional equivalent? How does caselaw explain this rule?
When a reasonable person in the suspects position would conclude that his freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest Significant deprivation of personal freedom Police dominated atmosphere

What is interrogation?
Express questioning or its functional equivalent
Words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Relevant factors include police intent & knowledge of suspects vulnerability. State agent known as such to suspect.

First Miranda Safeguard: Adequate Warnings


Hypo: Mel arrested for child abuse. Officers tell him right not to talk and right to an attorney. Mel says nothing to hide and certainly dont need lawyer b/c I was well within my rights to beat my own kid as much as I please. Do the officers warnings meet Miranda? Is Mels statement inadmissible under Miranda?

Question First/Warn Later: Does an initial failure to inform a suspect of his rights bar subsequent admissions after he has been fully advised?
Rule Explanation:

* Elstad (1985) * Must look at all the factual circumstances * Issue is voluntariness

Missouri v. Siebert (2004) Midstream recitation of warnings: Could the warnings could reasonably convey that suspect could choose to stop talking even if they had talked earlier? In this case, no. Court must look at the facts. * Elstad was a good faith failure to warn. * This was police protocol * Overlapping content of first/second statements * Timing * Continuity of police personnel

Invocation of Right to Remain Silent

Must invoke right to remain silent Invocation must be clear and explicit What is the rationale behind this -requirement?

Once invoke right to remain silent, custodial interrogation must cease unless:
Officers scrupulously honor suspects right to cut off questioning; AND Obtains a waiver

Invocation of Right To Counsel


Clear & unambiguous request for counsel such that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.

Second run at question. . . when suspect asks for a lawyer, interrogation must cease and may continue ONLY if . . . 1) Attorney is present; OR 2) Suspect initiates.
.

How long does Edwards protection last? Suspect was questioned while in prison for another crime. He invoked his right to counsel and interview was terminated. Suspect was released back into general prison population. Three years later, another detective reopened the investigation and attempted to interrogate suspect, who was still incarcerated. Suspect waived his Miranda rights and made incriminating statements. Is statement admissible?

Is the Edwards protection eternal?

Maryland v. Shatzer (June 2010):


Edwards is not eternal. The suspect experienced a break in his Miranda custody lasting more than 2 weeks. When a suspect has been released from pretrial custody and has returned to his normal life for some time before the later attempted interrogation, there is little reason to think that his change of heart regarding interrogation without counsel is coerced.

Understand the different standards for:


Invoking the Right to Remain Silent compared to Invoking the Right to Counsel and how each right is protected and waived.

Second Miranda Safeguard: A Knowing & Voluntary Waiver


Once adequate warnings are given, the government must secure a Knowing & Voluntary Waiver. Governments burden (1) Is there a waiver?
Express Waiver not required. See Berghuis. May be implied from course of conduct indicating waiver

(2) Was the Waiver Knowing & Intelligent?


Must understand the nature of rights being

abandoned & consequences of abandoning . Government only has to show that suspect aware of the matters in the warnings. Knowledge component requires capacity to understand. Look at circumstances: Evidence to show suspect mentally challenged? Does not understand English?

(3) Was the Waiver Voluntary? Free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion or deception First MUST show official coercion If sufficient official coercion, voluntariness determined by totality of relevant circumstances Note: The voluntariness analysis for waiver is the same as the Due Process Test for determining the voluntariness of confessionswas the suspects will broken?

In a voluntariness analysis, what factors might be relevant to the totality of the circumstances? Circumstances of interrogation including length of time Physical harm or threats of physical harm Promises of leniency on charging or sentencing Extreme deception Exploiting suspects particular vulnerabilities

Public Safety Exception


This is the ONLY exception to restrictions Miranda imposes on custodial interrogations (NY v. Quarles). What factors are considered?
1. Objective Reasonable Officer Standard

2. Nature and Magnitude of Public Safety 3. Immediacy of Threat

Quarles concerned the failure to warn before custodial interrogationit permits officers to dispense with requirements of warnings and waiver. Application: It is unclear whether Public Safety can justify the failure to abide by other requirements, such as the demand that waiver be voluntary.

Actual compulsion = NO public safety exception because 5th Amendment would bar the use of the statement.

Sample Rule-Based Outline Section w/ RE


Miranda Safeguards -- Invocation of Right to Counsel: [triggers different procedural safeguards than invocation of right to remain silent] 1. Invoking Right to Counsel Clear and unambiguous request for counsel such that reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an atty. Davis v. US (1994) Ambiguous assertion ineffective/no barriers to further I. Request for assistance of someone other than lawyer has no effect.

2. Once Invoke, Interrogation Stops (cannot try again

to get waiver) Unless: 1. Atty present; OR


Actual Presence Reqdconsulting with counsel does not satisfy: Minnick v. MI (1990) Interpreted Edwards v. Az (1981) broadly and held that merely consulting with counsel not sufficient. Counsel must be present.

2. Suspect initiates further communications, exchanges,


or conversations with the police: Must demonstrate willingness and desire for a generalized discussion of investigation. OR
If police initiate interrogation, any statements from custodial interrogation are INADMISSIBLE. Even if suspect gives waiver, it is presumed invalid. Change in officers or topic NOT RELEVANT.

3. Break-in-custody = can try again to get waiver.

Md v Shatzer (June 2010) Interrogated in prisonQ stopped after suspect invoked M right to counsel. Released into general population. Q again 3 years later by another detective. Suspect then waived M and made incriminating statements. Court held admissible.
Edwards Protection not eternal. Break in custody of sufficient duration to dissipate coercive effects: 2 weeks is sufficient break. Distinguished Minnick: Suspect didnt regain sense of control/normalcy after initially taken into custody for crime under investigation. Waiver must still be knowing & voluntary.