Anyone want to teach me about Miranda? Forum

[AJS30]

Anyone care to give a good explanation of Miranda? when its necessary to give miranda rights, when statements of the defendant can be used, etc.? I'm having difficulty with this...

[Law-So-Hard]

Main points:

- derives from 5th amendment: right against self incrimination. Made applicable to the states through the 14th amendment.
- must tell the suspect they have a right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and that their statements could be used against them. (they don't need to make a rote statement but have to get the main points down)
- applies to (1) custodial (reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave; environment of questioning resembles a traditional station house questioning) (2) interrogations (police are asking Qs designed to seek an incriminating response). If neither of these applies then the government will argue Miranda was not necessary.
- Must specifically invoke right to silence - you can't stay silent to invoke the right to silence
- Suspect's spontaneous statements (look for words like suddenly, declared, spontaneously) not protected by Miranda
- It's not offense-specific - if the police arrest you, and issue miranda warnings, and you assert right to silence/an attorney, they can't question you about other crimes either, subject to certain exceptions you can probably find in your outline (biggest one is a sufficient lapse of time, defendant reinitiates questioning)
- any statements given in violation of Miranda and evidence thereof are fruit of the poisonous tree and excluded under exclusionary rule, subject to certain exceptions (I can't remember them?)
- statements given in violation of Miranda CAN be used for impeachment purposes at trial, but not for substantive purposes

[Law-So-Hard]

and unlike the 6th amendment which applies after the suspect's been charged Miranda applies to everything that comes before that. basically from the point someone is detained/arrested.

[AJS30]

Thank you....I remember one of the multiple choice questions I had done had officers giving Miranda warnings twice, I think it was when they arrested the guy at home and then he spoke in the cop car and then they gave them to him again when they got to the police station. Not sure if this was a barbri question or an old MBE question, but if this rings a bell with anyone....

[Law-So-Hard]

Missouri v. Sebert: a police officer’s intentional, bad-faith decision to interrogate a suspect in custody without first giving the required Miranda warnings, which produced a confession followed by Miranda warnings, renders the second post-Miranda confession also inadmissible.

[VermiciousKnid]

Can I jump in with a related question? When and for what purposes can information obtained from an undercover cop or police informant placed in a jail cell be used, relating to both 5th and 6th Am?

[Law-So-Hard]

Illinois v. Perkins: Miranda exception for jail house informants. Applies to situations where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a state-agent; either a police officer posing as a fellow inmate, a cellmate working as an agent for the state or a family member or friend who has agreed to cooperate with the state in obtaining incriminating information.

Massiah v. United States: 6th amendment right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions and right to a fair trial attaches once government has commenced adversarial judicial proceedings "by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment." 6th A allows counsel in all "critical stages" of prosecution and investigation. The right is violated by deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents whether through overt interrogation or surreptitious attempts to acquire information from the defendant through the use of undercover agents or paid informants.
However, Massiah allows the use of jailhouse informants provided they serve merely as "passive listeners."

[VermiciousKnid]

Illinois v. Perkins: Miranda exception for jail house informants. Applies to situations where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a state-agent; either a police officer posing as a fellow inmate, a cellmate working as an agent for the state or a family member or friend who has agreed to cooperate with the state in obtaining incriminating information.

Massiah v. United States: 6th amendment right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions and right to a fair trial attaches once government has commenced adversarial judicial proceedings "by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment." 6th A allows counsel in all "critical stages" of prosecution and investigation. The right is violated by deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents whether through overt interrogation or surreptitious attempts to acquire information from the defendant through the use of undercover agents or paid informants.
However, Massiah allows the use of jailhouse informants provided they serve merely as "passive listeners."

Thank you. I see now that I have been applying the 6th Am rule in 5th Am scenarios, thus missing every darn question on this topic.

[plenipotentiary]

- any statements given in violation of Miranda and evidence thereof are fruit of the poisonous tree and excluded under exclusionary rule, subject to certain exceptions (I can't remember them?)
- statements given in violation of Miranda CAN be used for impeachment purposes at trial, but not for substantive purposes

This was a really good summary, but I just wanted to quibble about the last two points.

1. Statements given in violation of Miranda are out, but there's no "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule. Failure to give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical fruits of incriminating statements, as long as statements were voluntary.

2. Incriminating statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach D’s testimony on cross, but NOT the testimony of a third party witness.

Additional Miranda rule:

3. If evidence that should have been excluded as violative of Miranda was admitted and D was convicted, the court MAY be required to vacate guilty verdict, but this is subject to the harmless error rule (if prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D would have been convicted even without the tainted evidence).

[champ33]

Can I jump in with a related question? When and for what purposes can information obtained from an undercover cop or police informant placed in a jail cell be used, relating to both 5th and 6th Am?

A 5th Amendment violation requires police custody and interrogation without Miranda warnings. Because a defendant doesn't know he's talking to a police officer, there is no interrogation, so the 5th Amendment isn't violated. The 6th Amendment only attaches to one charge at a time, unless they both require proof of the same elements with no additional ones, so the police can use an informant to elicit information from a defendant on an uncharged crime, without violating the 6th Amendment (but not a charged one). Think that's right.

[encore1101]

One last tip:

A defendant must state his desire for an attorney unequivocally. If a defendant is in custody and says something like "Maybe I should get a lawyer.." he has not invoked his right to an attorney. Similarly, if a defendant remains silent during questioning, police do not have to cease questioning because he has not unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent.

[Law-So-Hard]

And to add/clarify:

5th amendment right does not bar a suspect's statements if they were obtained from an informant working for the police. Why? Because it all depends on whether the suspect is in custodial interrogation. If suspect does not know the police are involved and is merely chatting with someone in the jail 5th A right does not attach - because this isn't the type of coercive, police dominated atmosphere that is governed by Miranda.

it's not custodial interrogation if the suspect is in jail.

6th amendment WOULD bar the use of the informant who is working for the police if the informant acts to elicit incriminating information from the suspect and is not merely a passive listener (assuming it's post-charge). This is an interrogation b/c police are actively seeking incriminating information + the suspect has a right to have his counsel present.

This was the issue on a recent essay so I thought I would clarify this thread.

[JJDancer]

Main points:

- derives from 5th amendment: right against self incrimination. Made applicable to the states through the 14th amendment.
- must tell the suspect they have a right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and that their statements could be used against them. (they don't need to make a rote statement but have to get the main points down)
- applies to (1) custodial (reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave; environment of questioning resembles a traditional station house questioning) (2) interrogations (police are asking Qs designed to seek an incriminating response). If neither of these applies then the government will argue Miranda was not necessary.
- Must specifically invoke right to silence - you can't stay silent to invoke the right to silence
- Suspect's spontaneous statements (look for words like suddenly, declared, spontaneously) not protected by Miranda
- It's not offense-specific - if the police arrest you, and issue miranda warnings, and you assert right to silence/an attorney, they can't question you about other crimes either, subject to certain exceptions you can probably find in your outline (biggest one is a sufficient lapse of time, defendant reinitiates questioning)
- any statements given in violation of Miranda and evidence thereof are fruit of the poisonous tree and excluded under exclusionary rule, subject to certain exceptions (I can't remember them?)
- statements given in violation of Miranda CAN be used for impeachment purposes at trial, but not for substantive purposes

I specifically saw an mbe on this so Miranda also includes saying if you can't afford an attorney, one week be provided fir you.

Also for Miranda the prerequisite is a custodial interrogation. The use of or seemed misleading in this post so just clarifying

[txadv11]

Main points:


- statements given in violation of Miranda CAN be used for impeachment purposes at trial, but not for substantive purposes

I have something a bit different here.

"involuntary statements are always inadmissible, even for impeachment"
--Mincey v. Arizona 1978

Then again, after briefly googling that, I'm finding out Barbi may be wrong!


Oh well, no reason to get hung up on this.

[encore1101]

Main points:


- statements given in violation of Miranda CAN be used for impeachment purposes at trial, but not for substantive purposes

I have something a bit different here.

"involuntary statements are always inadmissible, even for impeachment"
--Mincey v. Arizona 1978

Then again, after briefly googling that, I'm finding out Barbi may be wrong!


Oh well, no reason to get hung up on this.

yeah, i don't know where barbri got that; that's def incorrect.

[tsutsik]

Main points:


- statements given in violation of Miranda CAN be used for impeachment purposes at trial, but not for substantive purposes

I have something a bit different here.

"involuntary statements are always inadmissible, even for impeachment"
--Mincey v. Arizona 1978

Then again, after briefly googling that, I'm finding out Barbi may be wrong!


Oh well, no reason to get hung up on this.

yeah, i don't know where barbri got that; that's def incorrect.

I think it's right that involuntary statements aren't admissible for any purpose, but statements provided without a proper Miranda warning are not necessarily involuntary.

[encore1101]

I think it's right that involuntary statements aren't admissible for any purpose, but statements provided without a proper Miranda warning are not necessarily involuntary.

Having voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process.2 Had inconsistent statements been made by the accused to some third person, it could hardly be contended that the conflict could not be laid before the jury by way of cross-examination and impeachment.

The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances. We hold, therefore, that petitioner's credibility was appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting statements.

Harris v. New York, 401 US 222 (1971)