MIRANDA
Safeguards must be observed:
1.
At the onset, if a person in custody subjected to interrogation, he must first be
informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.
2.
The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the
explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in
court.
3.
An individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the
right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during
interrogation.
4.
If an individual indicates his wishes for counsel before any interrogation
occurs, the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the
basis that he does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney.
5.
Warming him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but
also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed.
6.
Once warnings have been given, if the individual wishes to remain silent, the
interrogation must cease.
7.
If interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney, the government
has a heavy burden to demonstrate defendant knowingly and intelligently
waived his privilege against self-incrimination.
8.
Privilege is not waived if the individual answers some questions on his own
prior to invoking his right to remain silent.
9.
The privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being
compelled to incriminate himself in any manner.
Custodial interrogation:
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a
significant way.
1.
there been custodial interrogation by a state actor?
a.
Custody?
i.
Beckwith
: Not in Custody.
Petitioner was questioned in his
home by IRS Agents. He was the focus of a criminal
investigation.
Miranda defines “focus” as questioning initiated
by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.
ii.
Orozco
: Custody. Defendant was questioned in his bedroom at
4am by four police officers. The circumstances produced a
potential for compulsion equivalent to police station
interrogation.
iii.
Murphy
: Probationer arranged to meet with his probation officer
in her office. When he met with her, he admitted to rap and
murder a number of years ago.
Court concluded that Murphy
could not claim the “in custody” exception to the general rule
that the privilege against self-incrimination is not self-executing.
Custodial arrest is said to convey to the suspect a message that
he has no choice but to submit to the officers’ will and to
confess.
Murphy was not physically restrained and could have
left the office, any compulsion he might have felt from the
possibility that terminating the meeting would have led to
revocation of probation was not comparable to the pressure on
