Miranda Rights

Miranda Rights

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."

Inry Gault

15 year old boy who made a prank call in the 50s with some rude remarks and was taken to jail without his parents being notified. He was taken to juvie and not read his miranda rights. Juvie claims that kids dont have to have the same rights because they are trying to rehabilitate the kid, not punish him/her. Question: What rights do minors have? The Supreme Court says: Nope. The point is to keep young people from prison so they should be given the same rights because they are essentially being treated like a criminal.

Salinas v. Texas

Double murder man who was a witness was invited down for voluntary questioning. He was nice and answered many questions until they asked him if his shot gun would match with the bullets. He got awkward and this was commented upon in court. Question: Can you comment on that at the trial and is it admissible even though he was never read his miranda rights? The Supreme Court says: It was not coercive because he was free to go so it was admissible.

Miranda v. Arizona

Four cases held together. There was an 18 year old girl who was kidnapped and raped outside of phoenix. Miranda's lawyer argued that this confession was coerced and should not be admissible in court. Question: Does the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination extend to a police interrogation? Supreme Court said: Yes. You do not have to speak in an interrogation. The Court held that the suspect must be told their miranda rights prior to their interrogation so that they are well aware of their right to remain silent, etc.

Rhode Island v. Innis

Innis is read his miranda statement three times. He says that he wants his lawyer and he is in a car being driven by the police officers. In the car they are talking about a handicapped school nearby. Innis feels bad and shows them where the gun is. Question: Was he being interrogated? Supreme Court said: No, and even if he was, he was given his miranda rights. They said that the officers could not have known that he would confess because he had a special sensitivity to children.

Arizona v. Fulimante

It is known that Fulimante killed his stepdaughter. After being arrested for an unrelated crime, an inmate paid by the FBI got him to confess to killing his stepdaughter when he was told he would be protected in prison. After he was released, he also told his wife that he killed her. Question: Can someone be coerced into a confession even after miranda and were both his confessions coerced? Supreme Court said: Yes. He was coerced to confess in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments. Both the one to the inmate and the one to his wife because the one to his wife was based on the first.

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Man was taken into custody for a drive by shooting and refused to sign the paper saying he was read his miranda rights and later confessed. Question: Did he waive his rights? Was his confession coerced because he didnt sign it? The Supreme Court says: The confession was not coerced and just because he didnt sign it doesnt mean he was not made aware of his miranda rights. If you are going to exercise miranda you HAVE to SAY explicitly: "i want my lawyer" or "im exercising the 5th"

Duckwoth v. Eagen

When first questioned by police about the stabbing of a woman, suspect Gary Eagan did not make incriminating statements after signing a waiver and being told he would be provided a lawyer "if and when you go to court." The following day, after Eagan was questioned again and signed a different waiver, he confessed to the stabbing and revealed physical evidence of the crime. Eagan later claimed that the language of the first waiver made his confession inadmissible. Question: Did the first warning and misstatement of the line "if and when you go to court" provide that he give a coercive statement? Supreme Court said: No. It was not coercive because it does not have to be the exact language.

Missouri v. Seibert

Boy had bed sores and mom thought she would be charged with neglect so her and her two sons burnt down their trailer and killed her disabled son as well as a random other boy. One of the boys got burned by mistake and his mother went with him to the hospital. They questioned her without her miranda rights and she confessed. They tell her her miranda rights and she confesses again after being asked the exact same questions. Question: Was this kind of questioning coercive? The Supreme Court said: Yes. Once you confess once, you are much more likely to confess again.