The Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights)
Is a warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to inform them about their constitutional rights.
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of the right to decline to make self-incriminatory statements and the right to legal counsel (hence the so-called "Miranda rights"), and makes a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.
This is an important point about the Miranda Rights
"The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination, you have the right to say nothing to the Police, if you do they can use your statements to incriminate you in a criminal trial."
The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
1. Was the defendant interrogated? a. Was the defendant questioned? OR b. Did the interrogators engage in conduct reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response? Most states followed the federal definition of interrogation Innis rule If “Yes” go to 2; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
2. Was the interrogation conducted by government agents? If “Yes” go to 3; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
3. Did the government agents obtain testimonial evidence as a result of the interrogation?If “Yes” go to 4; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
4. Was the defendant in custody during the interrogation? a. Was the defendant under arrest? OR b. Would a reasonable person in the defendant’s position believe that she was under arrest?If “Yes” go to 5; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
5. Before any custodial interrogation began did the government agents properly advise the defendant of her Miranda rights?If “Yes” go to 6; If “No”, go to 18.
6. Did the defendant waive her rights?If “Yes” go to 7; If “No”, go to 18.
7. Was the waiver “knowing and intelligent”? If “Yes” go to 8; If “No”, go to 18.
8. Was the waiver “involuntary” a. Was there “police misconduct”? AND b. Did the police misconduct cause the suspect to waive his rights?f “Yes” go to 18; If “No”, go to 9.
9. Did the defendant assert either or both of her rights?If “Yes” go to 10; If “No”, go to 18.
10. Did the defendant assert her right to remain silent?f “Yes” go to 11; If “No”, go to 13.
11. Did the police immediately cease all interrogation?If “Yes” go to 12; If “No”, go to 18.
12. Did the police scrupulously honor the defendant's assertion of his right to remain silent?If “Yes” go to 10; If “No”, go to 18.
13. Did the defendant assert her right to counsel?If “Yes” go to 14; If “No”, go to 18.
14. Did the police immediately cease all interrogation?f “Yes” go to 13; If “No”, go to 18.
15. Did the police resume the interrogation?f “Yes” go to 16; If “No”, Miranda does not apply.
16. Did the defendant re-initiate conduct with the police before the interrogation resumed?If “Yes” go to 17; If “No”, go to 18.
17. Before resuming the custodial interrogation did the police re-advise defendant of her Miranda rights?f “Yes” go Evidence asmissible; If “No”, go to 18.'
18. Does an exception apply? a. Routine Booking Questions? OR b. Jail House Informant? OR c. Public Safety?If “Yes” or “No” go to 19.
19. Was the statement “voluntary” under the due process clause? a. Was there “police misconduct”? b. Did the police misconduct cause the suspect to make a statement? If Yes the statement is admissible for any purpose. If no go to 20.
20. Was the statement “involuntary” under the totality of circumstances test? if yes the statement is not admissible for any purpose. If no the statement is admissible for any purpose.
(Note: if 19a or 19b is answered "NO" that ends the due process analysis - the totality of circumstances test is not reached)
© Copyright Crime Case Files 2008 - 2011
Idea & Design by idea arts idea arts- privacy-policy