Top Law Schools

Miranda-- Assume D isn't yet indicted. During the initial interrogation, D invokes his right to counsel. D is subsequently released. 3 days later, one officer visits D's workplace, specifically says D isn't under arrest, and asks questions about the crime. Does that violate Miranda?

I'm thinking no, because this isn't custodial. but does Miranda require any subsequent interrogation be custodial in nature in order for the police to violate it?

Sixth Amendment -- This time D is indicted, and he invokes right to counsel. Sixth attaches. 3 days later, an officer visits D's workplace and asks about another crime in the area not related to the original crime. During this conversation, D incriminates himself to both this crime and the one he was originally indicted for. Obviously, the new admission is admissible, but what about his admission to the original crime?

Would this be considered a waiver of his sixth amendment by providing this info to the cop?

Halp plz.

f0bolous wrote:Miranda-- Assume D isn't yet indicted. During the initial interrogation, D invokes his right to counsel. D is subsequently released. 3 days later, one officer visits D's workplace, specifically says D isn't under arrest, and asks questions about the crime. Does that violate Miranda?

I'm thinking no, because this isn't custodial. but does Miranda require any subsequent interrogation be custodial in nature in order for the police to violate it?

Sixth Amendment -- This time D is indicted, and he invokes right to counsel. Sixth attaches. 3 days later, an officer visits D's workplace and asks about another crime in the area not related to the original crime. During this conversation, D incriminates himself to both this crime and the one he was originally indicted for. Obviously, the new admission is admissible, but what about his admission to the original crime?

Would this be considered a waiver of his sixth amendment by providing this info to the cop?

Halp plz.

1. Miranda only applies when the person is in custody no matter what.
2. It's not about whether the statement was okay, it's about whether the interrogation was constitutional. If it was, then any statements are fair game. In this case, since he was being interrogated for something completely different, it would be constitutional (Texas v. Cobb) so any statements that come out of it are okay. (I'm not 100% sure on this one so you might want to double check but I'm pretty sure, let me know what you find out)

Thanks! I really appreciate it.