Online Miranda quiz MIRANDA The constitutional implications of

Online Miranda quiz

MIRANDA. . . 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 “Terrystop” 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 statements routine, purely informational questions in the interest of public safety spontaneous 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 re. Mirandized

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 5 th Amendment

VIDEO LECTURE