Police Interrogation Practices
Author | Deja Vishny |
Pages | 411-424 |
SUPPRESSING CRIMINAL EVIDENCE9-1 §9:02
CHAPTER 9: Police Interrogation Practices
I. Guiding Principles
§9:01 Miranda v. Arizona
“You have the right to remain silent. . . .” This refrain, made popular in umpteen police and lawyer television
Miranda
time; in fact, the Miranda decision (Miranda v. Arizona
in 2013. Nowadays, it seems that everyone knows that law enforcement are required to read in-custody suspects
their Miranda
complying with the dictates of Miranda
some time, Miranda
rights and answer police questions; consequently, the administration of the warnings has not hampered police work.
not
read the Miranda warnings.
Miranda the short shrift; you could say
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009);
the wording of the warnings does not have to strictly comply with the exact proscriptions of Miranda as outlined in
earlier decisions, Florida v. Powell Miranda
rights, Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 US 370 (2010); once rights are asserted police can recommence questioning after
a certain amount of time has elapsed, Maryland v. Shatzer
not necessarily custody for Miranda purposes, Howes v Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181 (2012).
§9:02 Litigating Admissibility of Confessions
Miranda
lawyer; issues concerning the selective assertion of rights; whether your client had the capacity to freely, voluntarily
Chapter 10, Litigating Miranda Violations.
really happened in the interrogation room and why a coerced and (potentially) false confession occurred. Recordings
introduced into evidence.
To continue reading
Request your trial