|
Beyond
Miranda
In the time since Miranda was
decided in 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States
has decided several cases directly related to the issues
in the Miranda case. Below are brief descriptions
of the issues presented to the justices in several of these
cases. How would you decide these cases if you were a Supreme
Court justice? For the purpose of this exercise, you should
assume that you cannot overturn the Miranda decision.
First, let's review the main points of the Miranda
decision, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966:
Persons
in police custody must be warned of their rights before
they are questioned, as follows:
- You
have the right to remain silent.
- Anything
you say can and will be used against you in a court
of law.
- You
have the right to an attorney.
- If
you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed
for you.
The
failure to warn the accused prior to interrogation leads
to the presumption that statements made by the accused
were involuntary and must be suppressed because of the
Fifth Amendment's protection against a person being "compelled
in a criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Post-Miranda
Cases:
Harris
v.
New York
(1971)
Harris
was arrested for selling heroin to an undercover detective.
He had not been given his Miranda warnings when he
said to the police officers that he had made the sales at
the request of the undercover officer. At trial, the prosecution
did not use the statement the defendant made during their
case. However, when he took the stand, he denied making
the sales, contradicting what he had previously told the
police. The prosecutors then used his initial statement
to impeach, or make less credible, his testimony.
Should
the prosecutors have been allowed to use Harris's pre-Miranda
statement at trial, or did its use violate his constitutional
rights?
Read
about the Supreme Court's decision.
Michigan
v.
Tucker
(1974)
In
this case, the accused was warned of his right against self-incrimination,
but not of his right to a lawyer. In the defendant's statement,
a person was identified as a potential witness. The defendant's
lawyer argued that the witness could not testify, since
the witness would be "derivative evidence" arising
from the defendant's statement, which was not allowed in
court because of the violation of Miranda.
Since
the statement itself could not be used in court against
the defendant, could the witness still testify, even though
the witness would never have been found if not for the statement?
Read
about the Supreme Court's decision.
New
York v. Quarles (1984)
A
woman told two police officers that she had been raped at
gunpoint. She gave them a description of the suspect and
told them he had gone into a nearby supermarket.
One of the officers apprehended Quarles, the suspect, in
the store, searched him, and found that he was wearing an
empty holster. The officer asked Quarles where his gun was
and he told him. The officer arrested Quarles and read him
his Miranda rights.
Should
the suspect's statement about the gun be suppressed at trial,
since it was made before the Miranda warnings were
given?
Read
about the Supreme Court's decision.
Oregon
v. Elstad (1985)
Elstad
was suspected of committing burglary. He was arrested in
his home, and he made an incriminating statement before being
read his Miranda warnings. He was then taken to the
police station where the police read him his Miranda
rights. He waived his Miranda rights and the police
questioned him; during the questioning, he confessed to
the crime and signed a written confession.
Elstad's
first statement that he was involved in the crime was suppressed
at trial, but his second statement was used against him
and he was convicted. Should the second statement also be
suppressed at trial?
Read
about the Supreme Court's decision.
Illinois
v. Perkins (1990)
In
this case, police informants posed as prisoners in order
to obtain evidence of Perkins' involvement in a murder.
Perkins made statements to the one of the "prisoners"
implicating himself. This information was subsequently used
at trial and Perkins was convicted. There had been no Miranda
warning, since the defendant did not know he was speaking
to someone acting on behalf of the police.
Should
the defendant's incriminating statements have been allowed
at trial, considering that they were made without the defendant
being warned of his rights?
Read
about the Supreme Court's decision.
|
