1.  Online Miranda quiz Online Miranda quiz

2. The constitutional implications of custodial interrogation

3.  a U.S. Supreme Court case called Miranda vs. ArizonaMiranda vs. Arizona

4.  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...

5.  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”

6.  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

7.  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!

8.  protects a criminal defendant from self- incrimination

9.  guarantees a criminal defendant representation by an attorney during prosecution

10.  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

11.  you have the right to remain silent  anything you say may be used against you in a court of law

12.  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

13.  a defendant is in custody and being subjected to interrogation

14.  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

15.  JDB v. North Carolina 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”

16.  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

17.  questioning of the defendant  it could be done by words, or actions of law enforcement

18.  a confession or admission by the defendant

19.  when the defendant admits he/she has committed a crime

20.  when the defendant makes a statement connecting him/her with a crime

21.  volunteered statements  routine, purely informational questions  questions in the interest of public safety  spontaneous questioning  undercover officers  routine traffic stops  Terry-stops  non-governmental situations

22.  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

23.  questions seeking general information, like the defendant’s name, address, and place of employment

24.  questions like; “where is the gun?”  also: law enforcement can ask the defendant where a kidnapping victim is located

25.  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?”

26.  can interrogate without advising the defendant of his/her Miranda rights because the defendant will not be in custody

27.  do not require Miranda warnings  even if interrogation occurs  they are not considered “custodial” enough, because they are brief

28.  do not require Miranda warnings  even if questioning occurs  Terry-stops are not considered “custodial” enough, because they are brief

29.  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

30.  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

31.  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 attorneyMaryland v. Schatzer

32.  a voluntary and knowing relinquishment  the defendant “gives up” his/ her rights  waiver can be express or implied

33.  when the defendant says “I give up my rights”

34.  when the defendant says he/she understands the Miranda rights, and then proceeds to confess  silence is not an implied waiver

35.  actions of law enforcement  defendant’s age  defendant’s experience  defendant’s intelligence

36.  Missouri v. Seibert Missouri v. Seibert  tricking a defendant, by questioning without Miranda, then Mirandizing and questioning again, is unconstitutional under the 5 th Amendment