Chapter Eleven – Confessions and
Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
Rolando V. del Carmen
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Before Miranda: Only Voluntary
Confessions Admissible
– Voluntary Confessions
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 U.S. Supreme Court Cases Before
Miranda v. Arizona
– Coercion and Brutality: Confession not
Valid
• Brown v. Mississippi (1936)
– Coercion: Confession not Valid
• Chambers v. Florida (1940)
– Deception: Confession not Valid
• Spano v. New York (1959)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 U.S. Supreme Court Cases Before
Miranda v. Arizona
– Confession not Voluntary: Not Valid
• Rogers v. Richmond (1951)
– Suspect Denied Counsel at the Police
Station: Confession not Valid
• Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 After Miranda – The Three-Question
Test for Admissibility
– Were the Miranda warnings given?
– If they were given, was there a waiver?
– It there was a waiver, was it intelligent and
voluntary?
– Missouri v. Seibert (2004)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona
– The Case
•
•
•
•
The Facts
The Legal Issue
The Court’s Decision
Case Significance
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona
– The Miranda warnings (all together now)
• You have a right to remain silent.
• Anything you say can be used against you
in a court of law.
• You have a right to the presence of an
attorney.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be
appointed for you prior to questioning.
• Fifth addition – not required
– You have the right to terminate this interview at
any time.
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Miranda Warnings: Required by
the Constitution, Not Just by Judges
– United States v. Dickerson (4th Circuit
1999)
– Dickerson v. United States (2000)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Miranda Warnings: Must be
Given for All Offenses Except
Routine Traffic Stops
– Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)
• The rule
• The only exception
– Pennsylvania v. Bruder (1988)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Distinguishing the Miranda Warnings
from the Right to Counsel
– Massiah v. United States (1964)
– United States v. Henry (1980)
– Fellers v. United States (2004)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Differences Between Miranda
Rules and Right to Counsel
Miranda Rules
Right to Counsel
Fifth Amendment
Sixth Amendment
Custodial Interrogation
Many Proceedings
Police
Suspect or Judge
Given in absence of lawyer
Lawyer must be present
Must be given for every
custodial interrogation except
for traffic offenses
Once given is violated
only if interrogation
deals with same offense
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Miranda Rights: May only Be
Waived Knowingly and Intelligently
– Intelligent
– Voluntary
– Mincey v. Arizona (1978)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Miranda Rights: May only Be
Waived Knowingly and Intelligently
– “Intelligent and Voluntary” must be proved
by prosecution
– Signed waiver not required
• North Carolina v. Butler (1979)
– Express waiver not required
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Miranda Rights: May only Be
Waived Knowingly and Intelligently
– The Validity of a Presumption of Waiver
from Silence after the Warnings
• Teague v. Louisiana (1980)
– The Validity of a Waiver “Following the
Advice of God”
• Colorado v. Connelly (1986)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Miranda Rights: May only Be
Waived Knowingly and Intelligently
– The Validity of a Waiver After a Prolonged
Interruption Before Questioning
– The Validity of a Waiver that the Suspect
has Withdrawn
– A Waiver?: When the Suspect Requests
Someone other than a Lawyer
• Fare v. Michael C. (1979)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Custodial Interrogation: When the
Miranda Warnings Must Always be
Given
– Custody
• California v. Beheler (1983)
– Suspect under arrest
– Suspect not under arrest but deprived of freedom
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Custodial Interrogation: When the
Miranda Warnings Must Always be
Given
– Interrogation
• When the police ask questions that tend to
incriminate
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Custodial Interrogation: When the
Miranda Warnings Must Always be
Given
– Interrogation
• When the police create the functional
equivalent of interrogation
– Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Custodial Interrogation: When the
Miranda Warnings Must Always be
Given
– Interrogation
• When police appeal to the defendant’s religious
interests
– Brewer v. Williams (1977)
• When two officers converse between themselves
• When a conversation between a suspect and his wife
is recorded by an officer
– Arizona v. Mauro (1987)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Other Situations and Decisions on
When Miranda Warnings are
Required
– Situations in which the Miranda Warnings
were Required
• Further Questioning about the Same Offense
After a Suspect Asks for a Lawyer
– Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
– Minnick v. Mississippi (1991)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Other Situations and Decisions on
When Miranda Warnings are
Required
– Situations in which the Miranda Warnings were
Required
• Further Questioning about an Unrelated Offense
After a Suspect Asks for a Lawyer
– Arizona v. Roberson (1988)
• Questioning about a Second Offense When the
Suspect Has a Lawyer for a Different but Related
Offense
– Texas v. Cobb (2001)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Other Situations and Decisions on
When Miranda Warnings are
Required
– Situations in which the Miranda Warnings
were Required
• Further Questioning about an Unrelated
Offense Questioning a Defendant without a
Lawyer After an Indictment
• Suspect Asking for a Lawyer during the
Reading of Miranda Warnings
– Smith v. Illinois (1984)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Other Situations and Decisions on
When Miranda Warnings are
Required
– Situations in which the Miranda Warnings
were Required
• Interrogation During Detention when Detention
is the Functional Equivalent of Arrest
– Knapp v. Texas (2003)
• Giving the Miranda Warnings Only After the
Police Obtain an Unwarned Confession
– Missouri v. Seibert (2004)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully
Applying the Miranda Warnings
– Questioning on an Unrelated Offense After
the Suspect Indicates a Wish to Remain
Silent
• Michigan v. Mosley (1975)
– After a Knowing and Voluntary Waiver,
Questioning until the Suspect Clearly
Requests a Lawyer
• Davis v. United States (1994)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully
Applying the Miranda Warnings
– Using a Voluntary, but Inadmissible
Statement to Impeach a Defendant’s
Credibility
• Harris v. New York (1971)
– Using an Inadmissible Statement to Obtain
Collateral Derivative Evidence
• Michigan v. Tucker (1974)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully
Applying the Miranda Warnings
– Interrogating without Informing the Suspect
of All Crimes
• Colorado v. Spring (1987)
– Oral Confessions Admissible
• Connecticut v. Barrett (1987)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Situations Not Requiring or Not Fully
Applying the Miranda Warnings
– Confession Admissible despite Failure to
Inform the Suspect of a Retained Attorney
• Moran v. Burbine (1986)
– The Physical Fruits of an Unwarned but
Voluntary Statements
• United States v. Patane (2004)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Situations in Which the Miranda
Warnings Are Not Needed
– When the Officer Does Not Ask Any
Questions
– During General On-the-Scene Questioning
– When the Statement is Volunteered
– When Asking the Suspect Routine
Identification Questions
• Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Situations in Which the Miranda
Warnings Are Not Needed
– When Questioning Witnesses who are not
Suspects
– In Stop and Frisk Cases
– During Lineups, Showups and
Photographic Identifications
– When the Statement is Made to a Private
Person, not a Law Enforcement Officer
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 Situations in Which the Miranda
Warnings Are Not Needed
– When a Suspect Testifies Before a Grand
Jury
• United States v. Manujano (1976)
– When There is a Threat to Public Safety
• New York v. Quarles (1984)
– When an Undercover Officer Poses as an
Inmate and Asks Questions
• Illinois v. Perkin (1990)
Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v.
Arizona
 The Harmless Error Rule and
Miranda Cases on Appeal
– Arizona v. Fulminante (1991)