Two new U. S. Supreme Court decisions on Miranda
Written By:
Reid
May 01, 2010
The following 2 cases United States Supreme Court Cases were reported in Law Enforcement Legal Review - March/April 2010
Court Adopts Bright Line Rule on When Police Can Re-Question a Defendant After an Initial Invocation of the Right to Counsel
Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680, 2010)
http:www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-680.ZS.html
A police officer attempted to question defendant in 2003 while he was incarcerated at a prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Defendant exercised his right to have an attorney during the interrogation, so the officer terminated the interview. Defendant was released back into the general prison population, and the investigation was closed. Another detective reopened the investigation in 2006 and attempted to interrogate defendant, who was still in prison. Defendant waived his Miranda rights and made inculpatory statements. He was then convicted of child sexual abuse. The court below ruled that under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) the defendant could not be interrogated the second time because of his invocation of the right to counsel in 2003.
Reversing, the United State Supreme Court ruled that since defendant experienced a "break" in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards did not mandate suppression of his 2006 statements. The court ruled that if a defendant is released from Miranda custody he can be reproached by the police for interrogation. The release back into the general prison population after the sex crime investigation constituted a "break" in Miranda custody, the Court said.
The police, however, must wait at least 14 days after a break in Miranda custody before they can re-approach a defendant in order for the defendant to get back to a "normal" life, which in this case was a return to the general prison population. Thus the Court has adopted a 14-day "bright line" rule for a break in Miranda custody, after which the police can re-approach a suspect who has previously invoked his right to counsel.
Court Clarifies the Language of Miranda Warnings
Florida v. Powell (No. 08-1175, 2010)
http://www/law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1175.ZS.html
In Miranda the Court held that an individual must be "clearly informed," prior to a custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, "the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation." In this case the police read defendant his rights from their standard Miranda form, stating, inter alia: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions" and "[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview." Defendant then confessed. The court below ruled the advice the defendant received was misleading because it suggested that he could consult with an attorney only before the police started to question him and it did not convey his entitlement to counsel's presence throughout the interrogation.
The Court reversed, holding that the advice satisfied Miranda. By informing that defendant that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [their] questions," the officers communicated that he could consult with a lawyer before answering any particular question. And the statement that defendant had "the right to use any of [his] rights at any time [he] want[ed] during th[e] interview" confirmed that he could exercise his right to an attorney while the interrogation was underway. In combination, the two warnings reasonably conveyed the right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of an interrogation, but t all times. The Court declined to adopt or endorse any particular formulation of the Miranda warnings. The warnings are sufficient if they convey the essential rights required by Miranda, and reviewing courts are not required to "examine [them] as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably 'convey to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda."
Court Adopts Bright Line Rule on When Police Can Re-Question a Defendant After an Initial Invocation of the Right to Counsel
Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680, 2010)
http:www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-680.ZS.html
A police officer attempted to question defendant in 2003 while he was incarcerated at a prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Defendant exercised his right to have an attorney during the interrogation, so the officer terminated the interview. Defendant was released back into the general prison population, and the investigation was closed. Another detective reopened the investigation in 2006 and attempted to interrogate defendant, who was still in prison. Defendant waived his Miranda rights and made inculpatory statements. He was then convicted of child sexual abuse. The court below ruled that under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) the defendant could not be interrogated the second time because of his invocation of the right to counsel in 2003.
Reversing, the United State Supreme Court ruled that since defendant experienced a "break" in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards did not mandate suppression of his 2006 statements. The court ruled that if a defendant is released from Miranda custody he can be reproached by the police for interrogation. The release back into the general prison population after the sex crime investigation constituted a "break" in Miranda custody, the Court said.
The police, however, must wait at least 14 days after a break in Miranda custody before they can re-approach a defendant in order for the defendant to get back to a "normal" life, which in this case was a return to the general prison population. Thus the Court has adopted a 14-day "bright line" rule for a break in Miranda custody, after which the police can re-approach a suspect who has previously invoked his right to counsel.
Court Clarifies the Language of Miranda Warnings
Florida v. Powell (No. 08-1175, 2010)
http://www/law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1175.ZS.html
In Miranda the Court held that an individual must be "clearly informed," prior to a custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, "the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation." In this case the police read defendant his rights from their standard Miranda form, stating, inter alia: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions" and "[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview." Defendant then confessed. The court below ruled the advice the defendant received was misleading because it suggested that he could consult with an attorney only before the police started to question him and it did not convey his entitlement to counsel's presence throughout the interrogation.
The Court reversed, holding that the advice satisfied Miranda. By informing that defendant that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [their] questions," the officers communicated that he could consult with a lawyer before answering any particular question. And the statement that defendant had "the right to use any of [his] rights at any time [he] want[ed] during th[e] interview" confirmed that he could exercise his right to an attorney while the interrogation was underway. In combination, the two warnings reasonably conveyed the right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of an interrogation, but t all times. The Court declined to adopt or endorse any particular formulation of the Miranda warnings. The warnings are sufficient if they convey the essential rights required by Miranda, and reviewing courts are not required to "examine [them] as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably 'convey to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda."