Waiver Flashcards
What are the elements for waiver?
- The waiver has to be knowing (made will full awareness of the rights being waived). This just means that the officer has to reasonably believe that they understood the Miranda warnings. Can be proven via acknowledgement.
- The wavier has to be voluntary (this means that the police did not force you to talk).
Colorado v. Connelly (SCOTUS 1986)
This case held that, for a Miranda waiver to be involuntary, there must be coercive police activity.
What are some examples of waiver not being knowing?
Knowing = you waived your Miranda rights with full knowledge of the rights and their implication.
Waiver can be un-knowing if there is a language barrier, if the person has very low intelligence
Colorado v. Spring (SCOTUS 1987)
This case held that the police do not have to warn the suspect about the scope of the interrogation for the suspect to knowingly waive their rights.
Though the police cannot trick someone into waiving their rights, silence as it relates to the scope of the questioning is not trickery.
Moran v. Burbine (SCOTUS 1986)
This case held that a waiver can still be knowing and voluntary even if the police know and do not inform the suspect that their family member has secured an attorney for them. A person’s Miranda rights have nothing to do with their lawyer, so lying to the lawyer does not elicit Miranda issues.
Events occuring outside the presence and knowledge of the suspect do not bear on his capacity to understand and voluntarily waive his rights. This may have changed his decision about whether to waive his rights. However, the constitution does not require the police to provide information that would allow the suspect to make decisions that are in his best interest.
Facts: the defendant in this case was arrested and Mirandized. He signed waivers and confessed to murder. Meanwhile, his sister tried and succeeded in getting him an attorney. The police assured lawyer that he wouldn’t be questioned but questioned him anyway.
Michigan v. Mosley (SCOTUS 1975)
This case held that when a suspect invokes their Miranda rights, it does not create a permanent prohibition on speaking.
In this case, the Court hled that the police can conduct a secondary interrogation after someone has waived their rights and reinvoked them in the following case:
1. The suspected waived their rights and interrogation began.
2. The suspect invoked their right to silence and the police stopped all questioning.
3. Two hours passed.
4. A different police officer Mirandized the suspect who wavied his rights.
5. That police officer asked the suspect about a different crime.
Berghuis v. Thompkins (SCOTUS 2010)
This case held that a suspect must unambiguously invoke their right to silence. Otherwise, waiver can be inferred from the fact that Miranda was given and understood, and the defendant proceeded to speak without coersion.
Here, there was conflicting testimony about whether the defendant understood his rights (he read them aloud but did not sign the waiver). He did not ever say he refused to speak. He was interrogated for 2 hours and 45 min without ever directly answering the questions. Then the officer asked if he believed in God and if God would forgive him for shooting his victim and he said yes.
Counterargument: you should not have to speak, to invoke your right to silence.
Does a person have to speak up to affirmatively waive their Miranda rights?
No. Under Thompkins they can waive them if the prosecution can show that they knew/understood their rights and proceeded to speak without coercion. Thompkins
This is despite express language in Miranda indicating that neither silence nor an ultimate confession can imply a waiver.
Edwards v. Arizona (SCOTUS 1981)
This case held that once a suspect unambiguously invokes their right to counsel, the police cannot go back and interrogate them (this is unlike Mosley).
The police have to leave them alone until they are provided counsel, unless they initiate communication with the police and proceeded to knowingly and voluntarily waive their Miranda rights.
Dickerson v. United States (SCOTUS 2000)
This case held that congress cannot make a law that overrules Miranda because Miranda is a constitutional rule/decision that should not be overruled (stare decisis).
