Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, Second Edition by Jefferson L. Ingram

Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice,

Second Edition by

Jefferson L. Ingram

Chapter 10:

Miranda Principles: Fifth and Sixth Amendment Influences on

Police Practice

2Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, Second EditionJefferson L. Ingram

© 2009 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.

All Rights Reserved.

Introduction to Miranda Warnings Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination permits a person to remain silent.

Many arrested persons: Ignorant of right not to self-incriminate.

Do not know of right to free counsel. Unaware of other constitutional rights.

Miranda warnings required if: Custody exists and interrogation is desired.




Introduction to Miranda Warnings (cont.)

Miranda Warning1. Your have the right to remain silent.2. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a

court of law.3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him or

her present with you while you are being questioned.4. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, one will be

appointed to represent you before any questioning.5. You can decide at any time to exercise these legal rights

and not answer any questions or not make any statements.WaiverDo you understand these rights as I have explained them to

you?Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to me now?




2. The Basis for the Warnings Fifth Amendment provides that no person can be required to become a witness against him or herself. Arrestee may waive the right. Arrestee might not assert due to ignorance.




2. The Basis for the Warnings (cont.) Prior to Miranda, history showed, some police interrogated with brutality: Beating and hanging. Isolation from other persons. No food or drink. No use of toilet. Mental harm using psychological methods.




3. The Road to Miranda In Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), defendant arrested and interrogated for murder. His attorney was kept from him. After minimal sleep, he implicated himself.

Supreme Court heard case: Reversed- Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations.




Case 10.1, Leading Case Brief: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Facts: Police arrested

Miranda and questioned him for two hours. He made a signed confession that was used against him over his argument that his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. He was not told of his rights and did not ask for a lawyer.

Issue: Must police give constitutional warnings to arrested persons who are questioned?

Held: Yes. Rationale: No words of an

arrestee can be used against arrestee unless police warn arrestee of constitutional rights. Police must tell about right not to incriminate and right to an attorney; that if one talks it will be used at trial. Police must tell arrestee that free counsel is available if arrestee cannot afford an attorney. Process assures intelligent understanding of constitutional rights.




4. The Case of Miranda v. Arizona Police questioned Miranda for two hours and did not inform him of any right to counsel or to be silent.

He confessed to rape and kidnapping. Prosecution introduced that confession against him. Result: Conviction.

The Supreme Court reversed the case. Held that Miranda should have been told of his right to counsel; that he had a right to silence; and that if he spoke, his words could be used against him.




5. Prerequisites for Miranda Warning. Police required to advise every detainee concerning rights available under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Triggering events: Custody. Desire to interrogate.

Miranda warnings had to be given to persons in custody for felonies and misdemeanors.




6. Substance of the Warnings

Police must tell arrestee in clear and unequivocal terms: of the right to remain silent. that anything that is communicated to police may be used against the detainee in court.

there is a right to consult with an attorney prior to questioning.

that if arrestee cannot afford an attorney that one will be appointed prior to any questioning.




7. Delivering the Miranda Warnings Miranda warnings:

Read to arrestee from preprinted card at point of arrest.

Followed by written warning in check-off format at stationhouse.

Warnings given with less that textbook clarity may be deemed sufficient if they: Meet basic minimum standards. Are understood by the arrestee.




8. When Miranda Warnings Are Required: The Triggering Events

Warnings necessary when the officer: places an individual in custody and the officer desires to initiate questioning.

Waives rights, interrogation may begin. Police cannot first interrogate, later warn, and interrogate again. All evidence excluded. Missouri v. Seibert.




9. When Interrogation Must Cease If the arrestee indicates in any manner at any time that there is no further desire to be questioned.

Police: Not permitted to attempt to change arrestee’s decision.

Cannot tell arrestee: He or she must submit to continued questioning.




Case 10.2, Leading Case Brief: Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). Facts: Officer

questioned Seibert, then took break. Upon resumption, officer gave Miranda warnings. Seibert repeated the unwarned prior confession after being Mirandized. This was police plan to avoid warning Seibert first.

Issue: If police question custodially, then warn under Miranda, is second confession admissible?

Held: No. Rationale: Miranda

warnings allow arrestee to make a free and voluntary decision on interrogation. When Miranda is not given first and confession results, practice violates Miranda. When Miranda given after first confession to gain “good” confession, practice violates spirit of Miranda. Neither confession is admissible where this police practice is followed.




9. When Interrogation Must Cease (cont.)

After warnings, arrestee clearly indicates the desire to remain silent- asks for attorney: All efforts at interrogation must cease. Edwards v. Arizona.

After warnings, arrestee wants to remain silent only, and has not asked for lawyer: After significant time has passed, police may ask if subject wants to talk about crimes unrelated to arrest.




10. Necessary Condition for Miranda Warnings: Custody Custody exists:

Individual restrained of freedom of movement, or

Deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.

Custody does not exist when: Subject is always free to leave. Police place no restraints on going about one’s business.




10. Necessary Condition for Miranda Warnings: Custody (cont.)

Considerations of custody: First, what were the circumstances of the interrogation?

Second, would a reasonable person have felt free to leave?

Another view of custody: Under the circumstances, would reasonable officer have permitted subject to leave? [Minority view.]




11. Necessary Condition for Miranda Warnings: Interrogation Direct questions: qualify as interrogation.

Intra-police communication in presence of subject where police reasonably expect a response: may qualify as interrogation.

Police words or actions clearly designed to prompt a response: may be interrogation.




12. Miranda Interrogation: The Functional Equivalent Interrogation: may be so subtle as to not seem to be interrogation.

Interrogation: Police intentionally play to arrestee’s known weaknesses.

Police words or actions clearly designed to prompt a response: may be interrogation.




Case 10.3, Leading Case Brief: Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). Facts: Police officers

arrested Innis for murder and police repeatedly offered him the Miranda warnings. In a cruiser, as police conversed in front of Innis, he became motivated to disclose the murder weapon’s location.

Issue: Do police interrogate arrestee when they speak in his presence about concerns involving defendant’s case?

Held: No. Rationale: In discussing

location of murder gun, officers did not direct their conversation to arrestee. Officers had no observed intent to elicit a response from Innis; he spoke based on his decision. The words of the officers were not designed to elicit and were not likely to elicit an incriminating response from arrestee.




12. Miranda Interrogation: The Functional Equivalent Interrogation: In Nix v. Williams, officer purposefully gave speech to arrestee designed to elicit an incriminating response.

No interrogation or functional equivalent: Where relative of arrestee asks questions in front of police.

When police do not ask the questions but hear answers.




13. Exigent Circumstance Exception to Miranda Interrogation. New York v. Quarles recognized a public safety exception to Miranda warnings. Requires: Immediate danger to the safety of the public or of a police officer.

Permits: Questions to address emergency prior to offering Miranda warning.




14. Right to Counsel under Miranda Is Personal to Arrestee Sixth Amendment right to counsel belongs only to arrestee: Moran v. Burbine, sister of arrestee arranged for lawyer to assist burglary charge; Burbine never requested attorney after Miranda. Incriminating statements concerning unrelated murder admissible.

Principle: Constitutional rights enforced by Miranda warnings cannot be asserted by any other person.




15. Procedure for Waiver of Miranda Protection Constitutional rights enforced by Miranda may be waived by: Oral statement. Written statement. Other clear conduct indicating waiver.

Must be voluntarily waived. Must understand the consequences of waiver.




15. Procedure for Waiver of Miranda Protection (cont.)

No waiver: When warnings never given.

No improper coercion: If prompted by mental illness, family, or religious experience.

Allegation of waiver: Burden of proof on prosecution. By preponderance of evidence.




16. Congressional Challenge to the Miranda Warnings Congress attempted to reverse Miranda decision by legislation. 18 U.S.C. 3501 provided evidence in violation of Miranda admissible if voluntary.

Federal courts: determine if statements in violation of Miranda rules were voluntary. Admissible, even if warnings never offered.




17. Miranda Warnings: Required by the Constitution Dickerson v. United States ruled that Miranda decision was of constitutional dimension. Miranda case cannot be overturned by congressional law.

Congress cannot interpret Constitution.




17. Miranda Warnings: Required by the Constitution (cont.)

Federal courts have no supervisory control over state court systems.

To decide original Miranda case, Court had to have been interpreting the Constitution. Therefore, Congress cannot change Miranda by enacting new statute.




18. Summary Miranda warnings required:

When police have arrestee in custody, and When police plan to question the arrestee.

Warnings must be offered to all. Never a presumption of Miranda warning knowledge.

Failure to follow Miranda procedure: Evidence excluded for proof of guilt.




Case 10.4, Leading Case Brief: Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). Facts: Officers improperly Mirandized arrestee who gave confession. Confession was voluntarily given, but not consistent with Miranda. Congress’ law said proper to admit.

Issue: Can court use statement taken in violation of Miranda if confession was voluntarily given?

Held: No. Rationale: Court has no supervisory role over state courts. Original Miranda case required states to enforce rules. Only if Miranda was required by Constitution would Supreme Court have power to decide. Court held Miranda case was of constitutional dimension.

Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, Second Edition by Jefferson L. Ingram

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, Second Edition by Jefferson L. Ingram