Miranda Rights Interrogations and Confessions
Brae and Nathan
Agenda Objective Miranda v. Arizona Application of Miranda How Subjects Apply Miranda Miranda Exceptions Police Deception Reflection
Objective Students will understand legal issues behind conducting interviews and interrogations as a patrol officer.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. As a result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged. His written statement also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. Convicted, sentenced to 30 years in prison
Miranda s Appeal Miranda's defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Supreme Court In a landmark ruling, the court stated that the burden in on the police to inform a suspect of his 5 th amendment right to remain silent, and his 6 th amendment right to have a lawyer before any questioning or interrogation. (Miranda Rights) Miranda was later re-tried and convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years. He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 at the age of 34, after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested but chose to exercise his right to remain silent, and was released.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Police must inform a suspect of his or her rights before interrogation because being interrogated while in custody is an inherently coercive situation. These include: 1. The right to remain silent (5th Amendment "No selfincrimination) 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law 3. You have the right to an attorney (6th Amendment "Right to counsel") 4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you 5. If you choose to answer any questions, you may cease to answer questions at any time
Check on learning Who was Ernesto Miranda and why is he important? Explain each Miranda right.
Miranda Rights Application Miranda rights must be given regardless of the severity of the offense (Berkemer v. McCarty 1984) An officer need not use the precise language of the Miranda decision provided the warnings reasonably convey the suspect rights (US v Frankson 1996)
When Miranda Rights Apply A suspect is only afforded these rights during a custodial interrogation conducted by a police officer (both elements must be present "custody" and "interrogation" before the requirement that the warnings be given arise) 1. Custody (arrest) 2. Interrogation If one of these two are missing, the police officer is NOT required to read the suspect his rights
Check on learning When do Miranda rights apply?
Custody Legal status by which a person has been formally arrested or is deprived of his or her freedom of movement associated with an arrest A motorist stopped for an ordinary traffic violation is NOT in "custody" for Miranda purposes Questions asked during a routine investigation (Terry Stop) does NOT constitute being in "custody" for Miranda purposes
Interrogation Questioning conducted by police officers, either direct questioning or any comments or actions likely to elicit an incriminating response Spontaneous comments that are not a result of interrogation may be used against you Only applies to testimony, NOT physical evidence Routine booking questions, such as name, address, height, weight, eye color, finger prints, and age do NOT constitute interrogation
Interrogation Submitting voice and handwriting samples does NOT constitute interrogation Standing in a line-up or submitting a photograph does NOT constitute interrogation Submitting blood or DNA does NOT constitute interrogation however 4th Amendment protections apply (warrant requirement)
Okay! Okay! I ll talk! I ll talk! Please, just don t eat any more bacon!
Check on learning Define custody. Define interrogation.
Invoking Your Rights Self-incrimination only applies to you. You can be made to testify against someone else: "to rat out a friend or family member Trammel v. US (1980): Exception: A husband cannot be made to testify against his wife or vice versa
Invoking Your Rights Edwards v. Arizona (1981): Detained suspect asks to speak with a lawyer, police must stop the questioning, cannot restart the questioning, unless the suspect reinitiates the questioning on his own. Maryland v. Shatzer (2010): Police can make a 2 nd attempt at questioning a suspect who has invoked his Miranda rights, but they must wait until 14 days after the suspect has been released from custody
Check on learning Explain the accused s rights against self incrimination. Can a husband be forced to testify against his wife? What must police do if a suspect requests a lawyer during a custodial interrogation? When can police re-approach a suspect after they have exercised their Miranda rights?
Miranda Exceptions A suspects un-mirandized statements that lead police to physical evidence is admissible, even though the underlying statements themselves are not (US v. Patane 2004) Public Safety Exception: A suspects un- Mirandized statements can be used against him if the questions were prompted out of concern for the officers safety or the public's safety (New York v. Quarles 1984)
Check on learning Name two Miranda exceptions.
Was the statement voluntary? Involuntary or forced statements or confessions cannot be used against you in court Threats or torture by police? Police withhold food, water, restroom, or medical care? Manner and length of interrogation Age and intelligence of defendant Education and health False promise Maximum jail time not a threat
Police Deception Statement obtained by police deception (false witness or evidence) are generally admissible as long as the deceit did not nullify Miranda Warnings. Some courts have drawn a bright line between verbal falsehoods, which are permitted, and falsehoods included in documentation manufactured for the purpose of deceiving a defendant which are NOT permitted (State v. Cayward 1989)
Check on learning What are some ways the courts use to determine if a statement was made voluntarily? Can the police deceive defendants?
Reflection Write a paragraph on whether or not they believe Miranda and its application to be fair in the criminal justice world.