Axia College | Miranda Assignment | Week 8 Assignment ADJ 275 | | | 7/10/2011 |
|
* When should the Miranda warnings be given and why? * How might this situation not require Miranda warnings? * Explain your reasoning.
Miranda warnings should be given as soon as the suspect is in custody and before any questioning or interrogation. Miranda warnings are given in order to protect the constitutional rights of the suspect. Miranda warnings also ensures comments made by a suspect are admissible in a court of law. If the suspect is made aware of his or her rights, and choose to waive them, any incriminating statements can be used against them. If they waive the right to an attorney, they can be questioned without an attorney coaching them. A suspect may also, at any time during interrogation, request counsel. At this time, questioning must stop until the suspects attorney is present. A request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous. If a suspect decides they want an attorney after initially waiving thir rights, they must clearly state this. Officers conducting the interrogation may ask questions to determine if the suspect is indeed asking for an attorney.
Example case: Davis v. US The Supreme Court ruled that clarifying statements were not required if a suspect makes an ambiguous statement of their Miranda right to counsel. The defendant Robert L. Davis, was accused of beating a sailor to death with a poolcue after an argument in a bar. This was originally a Naval Investigative Service (NIS) case. When he was arrested, the suspect waived his Miranda rights after being taken into custody and before interrogation. After the interrogation had been going on for some time, Davis made a statement about needing a lawyer. Officers asked him if he did indeed want a lawyer, and he said he did not. Later Davis claimed that his statement had actually been a request for counsel and that his constitutional rights were violated. The Federal response was that becasue of the way the statement was made, that this was an ambiguous request for counsel. Therefore the officers questioning were justified in asking clarifying questions to attempt to clirify the intentions of the suspect. The court ruled in favor of the Federal government and allowed the incriminating statements to be admitted in court.
“Robert L. Davis, a member of the United States Navy, initially waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel when he was interviewed by Naval Investigative Service agents in connection with the murder of a sailor. About an hour and a half into the interview, he said, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer." However, when the agents inquired if he was asking for a lawyer, he replied that he was not. They took a short break, he was reminded of his rights, and the interview continued for another hour, until he asked to have a lawyer present before saying anything more. A military judge denied his motion to suppress statements made at the interview, holding that his mention of a lawyer during the interrogation was not a request for counsel. He was convicted of murder, and, ultimately, the Court of Military Appeals affirmed. (Davis v.United States , 1994)”
So the court has ruled that the burden is on the suspect to make it clear that they wish to invoke thier rights after they have initially waived them, or after they have been advised of thier rights.
In the Appendix, it states that Officer Watson caught the suspect and was walking him back to the police car. It does not say that the suspect was in custody at this time. During the walk back to the police car, the officer asked the suspect if he had thrown a weapon, and the suspect not only said yes, he told the officer it was a knife. On thier way back to the police car, the officer recovered the weapon and jewelry, which was later identified as that stolen. At this time, the officer took the suspect into custody and hancuffed him. In this report, there is no mention of whether or not the suspect was ever advised of his rights, either when he was arrested or later when he was interrogated at the police station. By asking if the suspect had ‘thrown a weapon', the officer got a possibly incriminating response that they had thrown a knife. The officer found a knife and jewelry on the ground as he walked the suspect to his police car. The suspect had voluntarily given information that may later be used against him. If the suspect had been advised of his rights, this information would be admissable. The officer asked if he had thrown a weapon and the suspect replied affirmatively and volunteered that it was a knife. According to the report, this questioning and response took place before the suspect was arrested, so it could still be admissable as voluntary because the suspect had not been arrested and was under no compulsion to answer, and since he was not yet in custody, there was no need to inform him of his rights. If he was not advised of his rights after he was taken into custody, and was questioned further, any other statements would not be admissable in court. However, since the officer witnessed him throwing something and heard the sound of an object hitting the ground in the area, the knife and jewely would be admissable as evidence becasue the officer witnessed it being thrown. Becasue it was discarded in a public place, it would also fall under the Open Fields, Plain View statutes. This alone would make it admissable in court. However the problem is if the suspect was in custody at the time he gave this information? The case says next that the officer put handcuffs on the suspect and placed him under arrest. This was after the suspect had admitted throwing a knife, and the knife and jewelry had been recovered by the officer. Watson started his interrogation prematurely, before he had the suspect in custody. But the suspect was also under no compulsion to answer.
References
FindLaw.com, 2011. Davis v. United States, 1994. FindLaw.com. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/512/452.html
