 Online
Miranda quiz
The constitutional implications of
custodial interrogation
a
U.S. Supreme Court case called Miranda vs.
Arizona




Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home, and taken to
the police station where he was interrogated about a
rape and kidnapping for a couple of hours
he signed a written confession to the rape and
kidnapping and was convicted of both after a trial
he did not have an attorney present during the
interrogation
the US Supreme Court held: An individual held for
interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the
right to remain silent, and the right to consult with a
lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during
interrogation. . .
 that
law enforcement will inform the
defendant of some of his/her constitutional
rights
 generally, individuals are required to know
the law, and are not constitutionally entitled
to an explanation
 once Miranda rights have been explained to
the defendant, the defendant has been
“Mirandized”
 any
testimony rendered will be inadmissible
 this includes confessions, admissions, and
even exculpatory statements which are
statements that tend to prove innocence
 the defendant will need to ask the court to
suppress the testimonial evidence
 an
involuntary or coerced response to
interrogation like a confession or admission
will still be inadmissible even if Miranda
warnings are issued beforehand
 involuntary testimony violates a defendant’s
right to due process of law
 the reverse is also true; if a voluntary
statement is made in response to
interrogation, but the Miranda warning was
never issued, the voluntary statement will
still be suppressed if the defendant asks the
court to suppress it!
 protects
a criminal defendant from selfincrimination
 guarantees
a criminal defendant
representation by an attorney during
prosecution
 are
based on the Fifth Amendment to the
federal Constitution
 although the Sixth Amendment right to
counsel is fundamental to the Miranda
decision, this Sixth Amendment right is
actually necessary to protect Fifth
Amendment rights
 you
have the right to remain silent
 anything you say may be used against you in
a court of law
 you
have the right to consult with an
attorney and have an attorney present during
questioning
 if you can’t afford an attorney, one will be
appointed for you
a
defendant is in custody and being
subjected to interrogation
a defendant is deprived of freedom in a
significant way under a totality of the
circumstances
 a defendant does not have to be under arrest
 a defendant could be in custody in his/her own
home, if not free to leave
 to determine whether a defendant is in custody,
the court will look at the defendant’s location,
presence of others, who initiated the
interrogation, the length and intensity of the
questioning, and how many law enforcement
officers are present during the interrogation

 JDB
v. North Carolina
 if the defendant is a juvenile, his or her age
should also be taken into consideration when
determining custody
 the Court stated: “a reasonable child
subjected to police questioning will
sometimes feel pressured to submit when a
reasonable adult would feel free to go”
 during
a traffic stop
 during a brief detention called a “Terry-stop”
 if the traffic stop or Terry-stop lead to an
arrest, however, the defendant will be in
custody
 questioning
of the defendant
 it could be done by words, or actions of law
enforcement
a
confession or admission by the defendant
 when
the defendant admits he/she has
committed a crime
 when
the defendant makes a statement
connecting him/her with a crime
 volunteered
 spontaneous
statements
 routine, purely
informational
questions
 questions in the
interest of public
safety
questioning
 undercover
officers
 routine traffic
stops
 Terry-stops
 non-governmental
situations
 are
when the defendant blurts something
out, without being questioned
 Miranda does not apply because there is no
interrogation in this situation
 law enforcement has no duty to interrupt
 for example: the defendant shows up at the
police station and confesses to the crime
 questions
seeking general information, like
the defendant’s name, address, and place of
employment
 questions
like; “where is the gun?”
 also: law enforcement can ask the defendant
where a kidnapping victim is located
 questions
in response to an emergency or
confusing situation
 for example: a law enforcement officer
encounters the defendant standing over a
body and asks, “what happened here?”
 can
interrogate without advising the
defendant of his/her Miranda rights because
the defendant will not be in custody
 do
not require Miranda warnings
 even if interrogation occurs
 they are not considered “custodial” enough,
because they are brief
 do
not require Miranda warnings
 even if questioning occurs
 Terry-stops are not considered “custodial”
enough, because they are brief
 Miranda
is a constitutional mandate, so it
only applies to government action
 a private individual, not working in
collaboration with law enforcement, does
not have to Mirandize before questioning
someone about a crime
 the
defendant can no longer be interrogated
about the same offense
 it is constitutional to interrogate regarding
other offenses, if the defendant is reMirandized
 the
defendant cannot be interrogated about
any offense until counsel is present
 new case, Maryland v. Schatzer : after a
fourteen-day break in custody, the defendant
may be Mirandized and interrogated without
an attorney present even though he or she
previously requested an attorney
a
voluntary and knowing relinquishment
 the defendant “gives up” his/ her rights
 waiver can be express or implied
 when
the defendant says “I give up my
rights”
 when
the defendant says he/she understands
the Miranda rights, and then proceeds to
confess
 silence is not an implied waiver
 actions
of law enforcement
 defendant’s age
 defendant’s experience
 defendant’s intelligence
 Missouri
v. Seibert
 tricking a defendant, by questioning without
Miranda, then Mirandizing and questioning
again, is unconstitutional under the 5th
Amendment