Invoking the Right to Remain Silent and to an Attorney - Miranda Flashcards
What must the police do under Michigan v. Mosely (1975) when a suspect invokes their right to remain silent?
Once the suspect invokes his right to remain silent, the interrogation must cease and the exercise of his right must be scrupulously honored.
What are the 3 factors that must be considered when the police want to begin interrogating the suspect again after he has invoked his right to remain silent? Michigan v. Mosley (1975)
1) After the right to remain silent was invoked, the police immediately ceased the interrogation;
2) The questioning was suspended entirely for a significant period;
3) The suspect is given a fresh set of Miranda warnings at the outset of the second interrogation.
Edwards trilogy: Part 1 - Edwards v. Arizona (1981) stands for what when a suspect invokes their right to an attorney?
When the suspect states their right to an attorney, they may not be subject to further interrogation until counsel is present unless the suspect initiates the further communication with the police.
Edwards Trilogy: Part 2 - Arizona v. Roberson (1988) standards for what in regards to the range of Miranda across different offenses?
Miranda is a “one-size fits all” when it comes to invoking the right to an attorney.
Edwards trilogy: Part 3 - Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) states that the police must allow how long for the individual to consult with an attorney before he can be reinterrogated?
The court held that although he had the opportunity to consult with an attorney, he didn’t have one present at the interrogation. So his Miranda rights were violated. Having the opportunity to speak with an attorney is not equivalent to having one present.
How long does Edwards trilogy protection last?
Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) states that edwards trilogy protection lasts while the suspect is in pretrial custody. Then, once the suspect is released from custody, the protection lasts 14 days. This provides the suspect time to acclimate to life again and try to determine what to do about their situation.
What must the suspect do to waive their edwards protection?
The suspect may waive their rights and the edwards protection by choosing to speak with the police and then satisfying the VIK standards, then receiving their Miranda warnings again.
Under Oregon v. Bradshaw (1983) what is required for a suspect to “initiate” the conversation with police and break the protections after they have invoked them?
There is a 2 step analysis:
1) Does the suspect state something that would cause a response that would directly or indirectly discuss the investigation?
2) Then the police must re-Mirandize the suspect to ensure that a valid waiver exists.
How must the suspect invoke his rights under Davis v. United States to show the police that he intends to invoke them?
The waiver must be unambiguous. There cannot be uncertainty. Also, once the interrogation begins and the suspect waives his rights VIK, then the police may continue the interrogation until the suspect clearly and unambiguously states his desire to invoke them.
