Beyond
Miranda
In the time since
the Miranda was decided in 1966, the Supreme Court 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 on the Supreme
Court? 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? Click here to read about the Supreme Court's
ruling.
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?
Click here to read about the Supreme Court's
decision.
Oregon v.
Elstad (1985)
Elstad was suspected of committing
burglary. He was arrested in his home and 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? Click here to 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?
Click here to read about the Supreme Court's
decision.
New York v. Quarles
(1984)
A woman told two police officers she had
been raped at gun point. She gave them a description of the
suspect and told them he had gone into a supermarket nearby.
One of the officers apprehended Quarles in the store, searched
him, and found that he was wearing an empty holster. He 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? Click here to read about the Supreme Court's
decision.
| |
|
Online legal resources at your
fingertips. 
Search the web for reviews and law
journals.