CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FIFTH AMENDMENT - SUSPECT'S CONFUSION ABOUT MIRANDA RIGHTS - PEOPLE V MADISON, 56 ILL 2D 476, 309 NE2D 11 (1974) AND STATE V JONES 37 OHIO ST 2D 21, 306 NE2D 409 (1974)

• NCJ Number: 19744
• Journal: Ohio State Law Journal Volume: 36 Issue: 1 Dated: (1975) Pages: 220-234
• Author(s): A J SONDERMAN
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 15 pages
• Corporate Author: Ohio State University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

EXPLORATION OF THE APPROACHES TAKEN BY THE SUPREME COURTS OF OHIO AND ILLINOIS WHEN FACED WITH THE PROBLEM OF CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS ASSUMED BY SUSPECT IN RELATION TO HIS 'KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT' WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS.

Abstract

THE CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS DISCUSSED ARE WHEN A SUSPECT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF HIS RIGHTS AND REFUSES TO SIGN A WAIVER FORM, BUT CONTINUES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS POSED BY THE INTERROGATING OFFICERS, AND WHEN A SUSPECT PROCEEDS TO SIGN A WAIVER AND ANSWERS ORAL QUESTIONS, BUT THEN REFUSES TO SIGN A WRITTEN STATEMENT UNTIL HE HAS CONSULTED AN ATTORNEY. THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT IN MADISON RULED THAT A KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER CAN BE ASSUED REGARDLESS OF THE SUSPECT'S CONFUSION. THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HELD IN JONES THAT CONFUSION OF THE DEFENDANT PRECLUDES THE FINDING OF A KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER. THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT THE HOLDING OF THE OHIO COURT IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF MIRANDA, AND SUGGESTS THAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS WITH THE WORDING OF THE MIRANDA WARNING ITSELF. HE RECOMMENDS THAT THE COURT PRESCRIBE A REWORDING OF THE MIRANDA WARNING TO CLEARLY EXPOSE THE FACT THAT BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL STATEMENTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING CUSTODIAL QUESTIONING MAY BE USED AGAINST HIM AT TRIAL.