NCJ Number
31671
Journal
National Journal of Criminal Defense Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Dated: (SPRING 1975) Pages: 111-130
Date Published
1975
Length
20 pages
Annotation
THIS PAPER CITES PERTINENT CASE LAW IN A DISCUSSION OF THE LEGAL DOCTRINES SURROUNDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ARISING FROM THE 1966 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MIRANDA V. ARIZONA.
Abstract
AFTER IDENTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT CALL FOR THE APPLICATION OF MIRANDA (VOLUNTEERED STATEMENTS, RES GESTAE STATEMENTS, ROUTINE, UNFOCUSED INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS), THE AUTHOR CONSIDERS REQUIREMENTS OF THE MIRANDA CASE. DISCUSSED ARE THE NEED FOR A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION STATUS, THE APPLICATION OF MIRANDA TO INVESTIGATIVE STOPS, THE EFFECT OF INADEQUATE MIRANDA WARNINGS, ADVICE AS TO THE PRESENCE OF AN ATTORNEY, AND TESTS TO DETERMINE THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF A WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS. HIGHLIGHTED IS THE MASSIAH RULE (MASSIAH V. UNITED STATES, 1964), WHICH HOLDS AS INADMISSIBLE CONFESSIONS OBTAINED IN POST-INDICTMENT INTERROGATION BY A REPRESENTED SUSPECT. OTHER TOPICS COVERED INCLUDE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AS APPLIED TO CONFESSIONS, THE NEED FOR STATE CORROBORATION, AND THE USE OF INVALID CONFESSIONS IN PRESENTENCE REPORTS. ALSO DISCUSSED ARE THE LAW APPLICABLE TO SUPPRESSION HEARINGS, THE USE OF SUPPRESSED CONFESSIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES, THE FILING OF A SUPPRESSION MOTION, AND PRETRIAL SUPPRESSION TACTICS.