Criminal Procedures: Cases, Statutes, and Executive Materials
- Miller, Wright
- 3rd Edition
- ISBN: 0735563241
| Page | Case Name | Citation | Court | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 541 | Miranda v. Arizona | 384 U.S. 436 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1966 |  Download |
| Case Information | Fact Summary | Rule of Law |
|---|---|---|
|
Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States, 1966 384 U.S. 436 Pg. 541 |
The Court decided on the following four cases where the defendants had provided statements during custodial interrogation: (1) Miranda v. Arizona, where the police arrested the defendant and took him to a special interrogation room where they secured a confession; (2) Vignera v. New York, where the defendant made oral admissions to the police after interrogation in the afternoon, and then signed an inculpatory statement upon being questioned by an assistant district attorney later the same evening; (3) Westover v. United States, where the defendant was handed over to the FBI by local authorities after they had detained and interrogated him for a lengthy period, both at night and the following morning and after some two hours of questioning, the federal officers obtained signed statements from the defendant; and (4) California v. Stewart, where the local police held the defendant five days in the station and interrogated him on nine separate occasions before they secured his inculpatory statement. | "[T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean 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. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned." |
© 2010 Courtroom Connect, Inc. All rights reserved.