Miranda: Its Meaning and Application Chapter 6 Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Miranda Considered to be one of the three most significant precedent-setting cases in history with Mapp and Gideon. Prior to Miranda the criteria for determining if a confession was admissible in court was whether it had been given “freely and voluntarily.”

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ McNabb v. U.S., 1943 McNabb brothers arrested for killing a revenue agent. They were interrogated for two straight days, confessed, and were convicted on their confessions and sentenced to 45 years. On appeal the Supreme Court refused to address the legality of their confession and instead reversed their convictions under the federal rule that required a “prompt arraignment” after arrest.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Mallory v. U.S., 1957 Mallory, described as a man of limited intelligence, was arrested for rape. He was interrogated for over ten hours and confessed; he was convicted based on his confession. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction citing he had not been “promptly arraigned.”

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Significance Brought about requiring prompt arraignment. Both cases the Court refused to deal with the issue of confessions. Due to the strong belief at the time that the Constitution was a federal document that only applied to federal proceedings. There was an equally strong belief in States rights to determine their own laws and justice system procedures.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964 Escobedo was a suspect in his brother-in-laws, murder. Escobedo was taken to police station for questioning and requested to speak to his lawyer, was told he could after the interrogation. His lawyer was at the station asking to see him and was denied as well. His conviction was overturned because he was refused an opportunity to consult with counsel— violation of the sixth and fourteenth amendments.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Miranda Case Reversed the 1963 conviction of Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto Miranda and was 23 years old, of Mexican descent. He was arrested at his home on March, 13, 1963, taken to the Phoenix police station, and placed in a line-up.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Miranda Case He was identified by the victim as the man who kidnapped and raped her. He was questioned for two hours and signed a confession to both crimes. His confession was admitted into evidence at his trial, over objections by his attorney.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Miranda Case On appeal the Supreme Court held that “…the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.”

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Miranda Case The Court clarified custodial interrogation as questioning initiated by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom in any significant way.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Miranda Case The Court also established as requirement that the person be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Did you Know? In any case in which a defendant appeals the conviction because of some procedural error, and wins the appeal, the person may be re-tried, as long as no evidence that was ruled out because of the appeal is used. This is not double jeopardy.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Rest of the Story Miranda was re-tried, without using his confession, and was convicted on the testimony of the victim. He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 20 to 30 years. Miranda was paroled in 1972.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Rest of the Story In 1974 he was arrested in Tempe, Arizona with a loaded handgun and drugs. This arrest was dropped as an illegal search and seizure, however, his parole was revoked. Miranda was paroled again in April of 1975.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Rest of the Story In February of 1976, while drinking beer he got into an argument with an illegal Mexican who stabbed him to death. When police arrived they recognized Miranda, searched his pockets, and found several cards with the “Miranda” warning printed on them. He was known to sell the cards around the Maricopa County court buildings. One of the officers read the suspect his rights off one of the cards taken from Miranda’s pocket.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Miranda Decision The purpose was to “police the police.” The Miranda warning was suggested by the police as a guideline to follow in providing the acceptable “preventive measures” required. Its specific wording is not required, nor is the Miranda warning, itself, a constitutional right. It is considered a constitutional rule.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Warning You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand? (Fifth Amendment) Anything you say may be used against you in court. Do you understand? (Fiftj Amendment)

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Warning You have the right to the presence of an attorney before and during any questioning. Do you understand? (Sixth Amendment) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you free of charge, before any questioning, if you want. Do you understand? (Sixth Amendment)

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Requirements Miranda must be given when two specific conditions are present; 1)When a suspect is taken into custody, or otherwise deprived of freedom in a significant way. 2)If and when the person is subject to questioning about a crime as a suspect by a police officer. These conditions are referred to as “elements of custodial interrogation.”

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Not Required If the person is not in custody, and knows that he or she is free to leave. If the suspect is in custody but police do not question him or her.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ The Beheler Admonition “Thank you for coming down to the station. We want you to know that you are not under arrest, and that you are free to leave at any time. We just want to talk to you about a matter. Do you mind answering a few questions?” This creates a consensual encounter.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Right to Counsel Guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Is only available to the person after they have been formally charged in court and becomes a defendant in a criminal action. The police do not provide an attorney if a person asks for one.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Detention Situations When Miranda Is Not Required When asking questions of a motorist detained in a routine traffic stop. When asking routine questions of a DUI suspect. When there is an immediate threat to public safety, officer safety, victim safety, or suspect safety.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Detention Situations When Miranda Is Not Required When no questions are asked. When asking general on-scene questions. During line-ups, field show-ups, or photo IDs.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Detention Situations When Miranda Is Not Required When questioning witnesses. When statements are made to a private person, or one believed to be a private person by the suspect. When questioning is in a suspect’s office or place of business, as long as the person is free to leave. In simple detention/stop and frisk situations.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Miranda in Juvenile Cases Juvenile procedures have more rigorous requirements. Independent state grounds—concept that a state may enact laws providing greater protection for juveniles than required by the Constitution. Interested Adult Laws—requires getting the child’s parent or guardian’s permission before questioning a child.

Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ Miranda in Juvenile Cases Federal law provides far greater protection for juveniles than is required by Miranda. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Miranda requirement is the same for juveniles. (In re Gault, 1967 and Fare v. Michael C., 1979)