Miranda Analysis Flashcards
What is the 5th amendment?
The fifth amendment provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Under what circumstance can an incriminating statement, obtained in a custodial interrogation, be used against a defendant?
Under Miranda, any incriminating statement obtained as a result of custodial interrogation may NOT be used unless the police informed the suspect of their Miranda rights/
What does it mean to be in custody?
A person is in custody when he reasonably believes that he is not free to leave.
What is an interrogation?
An interrogation occurs when the police know or should know that their actions are likely to elicit an incriminating response.
When must the Miranda rights be read to a suspect?
When a person is in custody, the police must inform the person of their Miranda rights before an interrogation.
What is the Miranda warnining?
- Suspect has right to remain silent.
- Any statement may be used against suspect in court of law.
- You have a right to an attorney and
- You have a right to have an attorney appointed if you can’t afford one.
How can a defendant waive their Miranda rights?
A defendant may KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY waive his Miranda rights.
Who has the burden to prove that waiver of Miranda rights was proper?
The burden is on the government to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily.
Under what two circumstances must the police cease interrogation?
When the suspect
1) invokes the right to remain silent;
2) invokes the right to counsel
After how many days can police resume interrogation after invoking right to remain silent.
14 days.
Can an inadmissible confession be used in court?
No, however, it can be used to impeach.
Is a murder weapon (or other physical evidence) that comes from an inadmissible confession be admitted into evidence?
YES.
Under what circumstance will a conviction be upheld in a trial that admitted evidence in violation of Miranda.
If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless because the defendant would have been convicted even without the tainted evidence.
