Here’s the scenario: A husband is being questioned by the Police regarding the murder of his wife. He was read the Miranda warning before questioning and he agrees to be interviewed. During the interview the questions become somewhat accusatory so he says he wants terminate the interview and wants a lawyer. The questioning stops. The Police do not have enough evidence to charge him (or anyone else) with the crime so the case goes cold. Fast forward 12 years. A police cold case squad picks up the case and begins to develop new leads which implicates the husband. They go to question him again and he does not admit any guilt, however his story changed significantly. He is ultimately charged with murder and goes to trial. During trial the inconsistencies in his stories are brought out.
My question is: Can this be admitted since he exercised his right to terminate in the interview 12 years earlier?
Once a suspect exercises his rights under Miranda, how long is that good for?
Of course it can be admitted. He said it, and it was post-miranda.
In the latter case, the cold case team just ‘wanted to talk’ and so he was probably not under arrest at that time. So he did not need to be Mirandized.
This is why you don’t tell the police anything at all. Even if you didn’t do it, they can use the fact that your “story changed” (because your memory of events changes 12 years later probably) to argue to a jury that means you’re guilty.
He would have to be read his rights before the second interview. If he agreed to waive his rights at that time, any inconsistencies between his two versions would be admissible. See, Maryland v. Shatzer, which says subsequent interrogation is okay after 14 days have passed.
As explained above it is pretty clearly stated in Shatzer. The 14 period imposed by the court doesn’t mean Miranda expired, just that authorities have the right to ask if he wants to now talk. All he has to do is say no. I disagree with Habeed that Miranda will not have to be read even if it is a non-custodial setting. It is a continuation of the proceedings from before when Miranda was invoked. Miranda will have to be read and waived for the interview to continue whether it was 14 days or 14 years.
The scenario : he’s on the couch at his living room. The doorbell rings. He gets up. A couple of detectives say something like “we think we might be on the trail of the real killer” or “mind letting us know if you saw <fake detail x> on that night”?
As long as he isn’t actually being arrested, I suspect they can in fact ask him for another telling of the story, and I do know they can lie about their motives.
Hate to nitpik but the OP’s scenario is flawd. If the police did not have enough to charge him, then he probably wasn’t under arrest during the questioning. So why was he Mirandized in the first place? Was he or was he not free to leave before the questioning even started? The caveat being I understand that some agencies Mirandize almost everyone they interview whether in custody or not. It’s dumb but it’s done in some places.
Shatzer was an inmate thus already in custody. A different circumstance than what the OP described.
You are incorrect. Shatzer states that you can ask him again if he wants to waive his rights and make a statement. It does not nullify that fact that he invoked his rights to begin with. There is no time limit on Miranda rights once invoked. Any statement made would not be admissible if Miranda was not given and waived. In Shatzer it wasn’t 12 years but it was 3.
In my state statements will more often than not be thrown out if Miranda isn’t given during a formal taped statement with a suspect even if it is clear it is a non-custodial situation.
“If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.”
Does NJ really pay for attorneys for people who are not in custody and free to leave?
And then, when they’re not charged with anything you [taxpayers] still have to pay a state appointed lawyer for being there? For someone who was not under arrest and free to leave?
Another nitpick – although all these rights get grouped together under the Miranda umbrella, it’s actually Edwards v. Arizona that stands for the proposition that questioning must cease when the custodial suspect requests counsel.
That said, Shatzer controls this question. The twelve year break is clearly long enough “to dissipate [the] coercive effects [of the original custodial interrogation].” (559 U.S. 98 at 107)
While someone was actually in custody, a couple of times but not a lot. Usually I wouldn’t have any reason to question someone I already arrested. I know what they did which is why they are in custody. About 95%+ of my arrest do not involve post arrest questioning or Miranda.
Not under arrest: never that I can remember. But we also don’t Mirandize people who are free to go.
Flawed or not, it’s the way it happened. The husband was not under arrest at the first interview as it was very soon after the discovery of the dead wife, however he was Mirandized. This is common, the strategy being if someone does admit guilt the interviewer does not want to have to stop the interview and read Miranda whereby the suspect may then decide to clam up. If Miranda is read first, then it is more of a “flow”, if you will. It is debatable which is best to do.
No, actually it isn’t. People not in custody and free to leave are usually not Mirandized. Loach’s situation is unique to his location and those courts.