The Miranda Doctrine

1
The Miranda Doctrine
2
Determining Custody

• Formal arrest
• Would a reasonable person in suspects position
  have understood herself to be deprived of freedom
  in a significant way? (Berkemer v. McCarty)
• Uncommunicated police intentions irrelevant
  (Stansbury v. CA)
• Location important, but not dispositive (OR v.
  Mathiason Orozco v. TX)
• Routine traffic or Terry stop is not custody -
  (Berkemer)

3
Other factors bearing on Custody

• When interrogation occurs
• How suspect reached encounter
• Length
• How many police present
• Display of weapons
• Physical restraint, guards
• Subsequent events

4
Problem 8-11

• Was Holmes in custody at the time of
  interrogation?
• Would reasonable person in Holmes position have
  believed that his freedom was deprived in a
  significant way?

5
Problem 8-13

• Was DeLaurier in custody when questioned by
  Officer Dostanko (two times)?
• Would reasonable person in DeLauriers position
  have believed that his freedom was deprived in a
  significant way?

6
Defining Interrogation

• Expess questioning
• Or its functional equivalent
• Words or actions on the part of police, other
  than those normally attendant upon arrest and
  custody, that police should have known were
  reasonably likely to elicit incriminating
  response from suspect
• Objective standard, but police intent and
  knowledge relevant

7
Problem 8-18

• Did switching on radio constitute express
  questioning or functional equivalent?
• Should police have known this act was reasonably
  likely to elicit an incriminating response?

8
Adequacy of Warnings

• Talismanic incantation not necessary
• Some deviations tolerated (CA v. Prysock,
  Duckworth v. Egan)
• Must police admonish regarding fact that silence
  cannot be used?

9
Problem 8-22

• Was Toliver interrogated when told about
  codefendant statement?

10
Problem 8-23

• Were waivers deficient?
• Are facts sufficiently distinct from CA v.
  Prysock to cause different result?

11
Waiver

• Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent (CO v.
  Connelly CT v. Barrett)
• Must follow warnings
• Heavy burden on prosecution (but later,
  preponderance)
• Waiver must be express, not presumed from silence
  (but act can suffice NC v. Butler)
• Lengthy or incommunicado incarceration is strong
  evidence that waiver involuntary

12
Problem 8-26

• Did Terranova validly waive Miranda rights?
• Distinguished from NC v. Butler?

13
Invocation

• Must be sufficiently clear that reasonable police
  officer would understand desire for counsel
  (Davis v. US)
• If right to silence, police may approach if
  police scrupulously honor desire (MI v. Mosely)
• If right to counsel, no approach possible
  (Edwards v. AZ)
• Police can re-approach if suspect initiates a
  more generalized discussion relating directly or
  indirectly to the investigation (OR v. Bradshaw)

14
Problem 8-28

• Did police scrupulously honor invocation?
• Dod Scott waive in fact?
• Did deception render any waiver involuntary?

15
Next time

• Custodial Interrogation and the Miranda Doctrine,
  pp. 661-686
• Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, pp. 698-717