Miranda

Question 1

What are the safeguards offered by Miranda?

Answer 1

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be held against you
3. You have the right to an attorney
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

Question 2

Does Miranda require that all four warnings always be given to every suspect in custody?

Answer 2

Yes except the last one.

It does not matter whether the police believe that a suspect knows their rights (due to prior involvement in the criminal legal system etc). The one exception is that if the police arrest someone who they know for a fact has enough money to afford an attorney, they do not need to tell them that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be provided.

Question 3

Are the police required to give Miranda warnings in the exact form as they appear in the case?

Answer 3

No. As long as they give warnings that encompass the four safeguards.

Question 4

What does Miranda say about the custodial environment?

Answer 4

The custodial environment is inherently coercive. If someone is given their Miranda warning and waives their rights, their testimony is not coerced.

Question 5

What is the bright line rule established by Miranda?

Answer 5

If someone in custody makes a statement without being Mirandized that statement is automatically compelled.

Question 6

When does the right against self-incrimination attach?

Answer 6

Whenever someone is compelled to provide incriminating testimony.

Question 7

What happens if someone in custody makes an incriminating statement without being Mirandized?

Answer 7

Unless there are exigent circumstances, the statement must be excluded at trial. But…
* The fruits of that statement can be admitted.
* And the statement can be used to impeach the witness (however, the judge must instruct the jury that the statement cannot be used as evidence of the suspect’s guilt). Harris.

Question 8

What happens if someone is Mirandized and, at some point, asks for an attorney?

Answer 8

If this happens, all questioning must cease until the suspected has access to an attorney. The police, however, are not required to immediate provide the suspect an attorney. (But if a client is Mirandized again after a long period of time by a different attorney, then they need to make their request again).

Question 9

If a suspect has an attorney, does that attorney have the right to be present during questioning?

Answer 9

Yes.

Question 10

Who has the burden of proof in a Miranda claim?

Answer 10

There is a presumption that a suspect did not waive their rights. So the state has the burden of proving that a suspect’s rights were waived. The fact that a defendant confessed is not evidence that they waived their rights.

Question 11

Can the police lie to get a suspect to waive their Miranda rights?

Answer 11

No. They can lie to get them to confess once they have waived their rights.

Question 12

What are the two ways an officer can violate Miranda?

Answer 12

1. Failing to give a suspect their Miranda warnings.
2. Failing to respect the warning once it is invoked.

Question 13

Miranda and Impeachment

Answer 13

A Miranda defective statements can be used to impeach a suspect in court, as long as the judge provides an instruction that the jury should not use the statement as evidence of the suspect’s guilt.

Question 14

Harris v. New York (SCOTUS 1971)

Answer 14

This case held that Miranda defective statements can be used to impeach a suspect in court, as long as the judge provides an instruction that the jury should not use the statement as evidence of the suspect’s guilt. They can only use the statement as evidence of the suspect’s reliability.

The reason for this is that the jury is using the fact of the testimony, not the information the testimony is communicating, so this is non-testimonial AND the policy reason that Miranda should not create a license to lie on the stand.

**This is an example of the Court saying that Miranda is not required by the constitution.

Question 15

Doyle v. Ohio (SCOUTS 1976)

Answer 15

This case held that if someone has been given their Miranda warnings and they choose to remain silent, their silence cannot later be used to impeach them (i.e. call the credibility of their later testimony into question)

Question 16

Jenkins v. Anderson (SCOTUS 1980)

Answer 16

This case held that a person’s pre-arrest silence can be used against them. For instance, the fact that they did not immediately turn themselves into the police can be used to undermine a self-defense claim.

Question 17

When does a Miranda violation occur?

Answer 17

This occurs when a person’s Miranda-defective statement is admitted in court. It does not occur if a person’s Miranda-defective confession is used to obtain leads and evidence, and that information is admitted in court. This is because the constitution does not require Miranda, only that Miranda-defective statements are not admitted in court to incriminate a person.

Question 18

Michigan v. Tucker (SCOTUS 1974)

Answer 18

This case held that the fruits of a Miranda-defective statement can be admitted in court–particularly statements from witnesses that Miranda-defective statements led the court to.

This information is not fruit of the poisonous tree because a Miranda violation has not occurred until a person’s Miranda deficient statements are admitted in court.

Here, the court determined that the benefits of excluding the information to deter police misconduct outweighed the costs of losing reliable evidence.

Just because a suspect’s Miranda rights have been violated does not mean that evidence obtained from those statements are unreliable.

Question 19

Oregon v. Elstad (SCOTUS 1985)

Answer 19

This case held that if the police fail to Mirandize a suspect, subsequently Mirandize them and asked them to repeat their confession, this confession is admissible.

Question 20

Missouri v. Seibert (SCOTUS 2004)

Answer 20

This case reconsidered Elstad, though there was no majority opinion. Most states follow Kennedy’s opinion, which held that if the police fail to Mirandize a suspect, subsequently Mirandize them and asked them to repeat their confession, this confession is admissible, UNLESS there is bad faith/a deliberate two step strategy.

Indicators of good faith can include a cure period, a break in time that allow a suspect to distinguish between the two interrogations.

Question 21

United States v. Patane (SCOTUS 2004)

Answer 21

This case held that physical evidence obtained from a Miranda defective statement is admissible. Again, this is because the contents of the Miranda-defective statement is not put in front of the jury and physical evidence is not testimonial.

Question 22

New York v. Quarrels (SCOTUS 1984)

Answer 22

This held that Miranda-defective statements obtained under exigent circumstances are admissible.

Facts: the police in this case needed to acertain the location of the suspect’s weapon, which they had reason to believe was loose in the grocery store. The suspect’s statement providing this information was admissible.