1. Chapter Eleven – Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
Rolando V. del Carmen

2. Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
Before Miranda: Only Voluntary Confessions Admissible
Voluntary Confessions

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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?
Giving the Miranda warnings, but only after the police obtain an unwarned confession violates the Miranda rule; therefore, statements made after the Miranda warnings are given are not admissible even if these statements repeat those given before the Miranda warnings were read to the suspect.Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

6. 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

7. Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
The Basics of Miranda v. Arizona
The Miranda warnings
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.

8. Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
The Miranda Warnings: Required by the Constitution, Not Just by Judges
Miranda v. Arizona governs the admissibility in federal and state courts of confessions and admissions given during custodial interrogation by the police. The Miranda warnings are a constitutional rule; therefore, any law passed by Congress that seeks to overturn it is unconstitutional. Dickerson v. United States (2000)

9. Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
The Miranda Warnings: Must be Given for All Offenses Except Routine Traffic Stops
A person subjected to custodial interrogation must be given the Miranda warnings regardless of the nature or severity of the offense. Exception: The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute custodial interrogation; therefore, there is no need to give the Miranda warnings.Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)

10. 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 Once given is violated
custodial interrogation except only if interrogation
for traffic offenses deals with same offense

11. Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
The Miranda Rights: May only Be Waived Knowingly and Intelligently
Intelligent
Voluntary
Statements given by a suspect to the police that are not the product of free and rational choice are not admissible. Mincey v. Arizona (1978)

12. 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

13. 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
The trial court cannot presume a waiver from the failure of the accused to complain after receiving the Miranda warnings or from the fact that the accused spoke with the police after the warnings were given.Teague v. Louisiana (1980)

14. 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)

15. Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
Custodial Interrogation: When the Miranda Warnings Must Always be Given
Custody
The ultimate determinant of whether a person is “in custody” for Miranda purposes is whether the suspect has been subjected to a formal arrest or to equivalent restraints on his or her freedom of movement.California v. Beheler (1983)
Suspect under arrest
Suspect not under arrest but deprived of freedom

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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)

22. 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)

23. 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)

24. 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)

25. 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)

26. 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)

27. 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)

28. 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

29. 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)

30. Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona
The Harmless Error Rule and Miranda Cases on Appeal
The harmless error rule is applicable to cases on appeal involving confessions.
Arizona v. Fulminante (1991)