Just watched an episode of Law & Order:CI in which the head of a large security company is arrested for murder. They’re walking him out the door of his office and the cop begins to Mirandize him, “You’re under arrest for the murder of so-and-so. You have the right to remain silent … You know the rest, you’ve been around.”
So has the guy been Mirandized? Does every single word have to be read if the officers have reason to believe that the suspect knows the Miranda warning well, eg ex-law enforcement, etc?
Or could the partial Miranda be used to overturn any eventual conviction?
Miranda Warnings need not be read unless one intends to interrogate a suspect regarding the specifics of a crime. If the warnings are required by the situation, they must be recited, or better read, in their entirety.
Generally, you don’t have to say every single word exactly. Close enough is good enough, as long as you’re told the gist of the rights you’re entitled to.
First, he was “arrested” so I’m assuming handcuffed and therefore in “custody” and Miranda rights must be read. In the statement you quoted, they only informed the accused of his right to remain silent, not that his statements can be used against him in court or that he has the right to an attorney. So I would say they didn’t get the gist across and the police failed to comply with Miranda.
I’m not sure if there’s a partial Miranda, or only if you’ve been Mirandized or you haven’t and no in between. Good question. It would also depend on a lot of other factors not mentioned in the OP too. Namely, did the person volunteer information, did the police question him, ect.
Miranda is an evidentiary rule. If the prosecution does it right, then any statement made by the Defendant while under custodial interrogation can and will be used against him in Court. If they screw it up, they don’t get to use the statement as evidence. They can still convict Defendant if they have enough other evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Say the guy did the crime in broad daylight, in full view of a busload of nuns, Walter Cronkite, and Cecil Adams. There’s hd video from multiple angles that clearly shows his face while he’s doing the crime. There’s properly collected and tested forensic evidence that matches him. Once he’s arrested, there’s plenty of evidence to support a conviction guy even if the guy never says a word. He doesn’t get to walk because nobody read him his Miranda rights.
Don’t know the specifics of the episode, but it’s very possible that they threw the partial Miranda out knowing that they guy knew enough to know not to say anything at all without a lawyer. If he’s not going to talk, an incomplete won’t matter.
It is my understanding that when a suspect is to be interrogated, the investigator will re-Mirandize him anyway, before asking any questions, just to be safe. The procedural Mirandizing-upon-arrest is just a redundancy requirement.
Yup. And, as noted by friedo, modern practice is often to remirandize em anyway, and have them sign a waiver with the warnings on it, before interrogation. Sometimes they videotape the whole thing, starting with Miranda.
Weird. I did not know Cronkite had passed away when I posted this. I was just using him as an example of a witness with virtually unimpeachable credibility.
Very informative, but you guys are ducking the issue. Suppose I’m a cop, and in the course of my duties, I find myself in the position of having to arrest Chief Justice John Roberts. In my nervousness, I forget to read him his Miranda rights, as do all of my colleagues, before interrogating him.
Can facts revealed during the interrogation be introduced at trial? Or can Justice Roberts be expected to succeed in a claim that, despite being one of the most prominent jurists in the land, he was not aware of his Miranda rights because Officer Kyrie neglected to perform the ritual of reading them to him?
Miranda is considered a brightline rule. If the police don’t say it, then the person in custody doesn’t know their rights and anything they say, when being interrogated by police, would likely not be admissible. Even Chief Justice Roberts.
The identity of the defendant is irrelevant for this purpose. Facts revealed during unmirandized interrogation might be admissable, depending on how they are actually discovered. For example, the fact that the murder victim is dead is probably admissable, regardless of what the defendant says or doesn’t say, because the cops would have already discovered that fact prior to talking to the defendant. The fact that the defendant confessed to the crime without benefit of Miranda, would not be admissable.
Now…suppose during the unmirandized interrogation, the defendant tells the cops where to find the murder weapon…and they had no other way of discovering it. In that instance, the weapon might be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous vine”.
Per Miranda itself, it is not sufficient to establish that the suspect knew of his rights without warning (384 U.S. at 469).
The warning given need not be the verbatim language from Miranda; it is enough if the language used “fully conveyed” to the suspect his rights (California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981); Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203 (1989)). In Duckworth, the Court said that the language used doesn’t have to be reviewed as if “construing a will or defining the terms of an easement.” Language that is possibly misleading included in the warning will not in and of itself invalidate the warning.
Note that Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation, or activity of an interrogation like nature (Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)). If after being arrested you don’t Mirandize the suspect, and while you are hauling him off to the station, without even asking him a question, he begins to blab about the crime, his statement will be admissible.
Is the name miranda really needed to be used, or could someone like me use the title, “The Exclusionary Rule” as I am repulsed by the constant reference to that person. Or am i way out of line as he was innocent??
Ernesto Miranda was killed in a bar fight. Popular legend has it that the last thing he heard was his eponymous warning being read to the guy who stabbed him, but that isn’t true. (Mr. Stabby was arrested later.)
I’m not as sure it’s entirely a bright line. I would argue that they key thing is that the suspect knowingly understands his right. Then I would prove that the Chief Justice did so, despite the lack of the Miranda verbiage.
If I remember correctly, on the TV programs where I have heard the Miranda stuff recited, the last thing said is something to the effect “do you understand these rights”? What if the person in question says “No” (and continues to say “No” if the spiel is repeated)?
Then you can’t interrogate them (or rather, can’t introduce the results of an interrogation at trial). Someone who is pretending not to understand his Miranda rights isn’t going to answer your questions anyway.