Effects
of the Miranda Ruling in Reference to Obtaining Statements/Confessions by
Police
Leslie
K. Penny
Module
6 Research Assignment 4
Chancellor
University
Effects
of the Miranda Ruling in Reference to Obtaining Statements/Confessions by Police
The requirements for statements and confessions changed the
way police did business when arresting a suspects where the "admission of
a confession may be challenged on at least five different grounds" (Kanovitz,
2010)
such as the due process free and
voluntary rule, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, the Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Kanovitz, 2010). In this essay, more concentration will be centered
on the fourth requirement, known as the Miranda Rule.
The Miranda rule, according to Kanovitz, is
"grounded in the Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination" (p. 324). This
particular requirement pertains to those confessions that were obtained during
police custodial interrogations (Kanovitz, 2010).
Fairly recently in 2010, the
Miranda ruling was revised by the Supreme Court in the case Berghuis v.
Thompkins that "held a defendant must invoke his rights remain silent (by
stating he wants to remain silent), rather than waive it (by explicitly
agreeing to answer questions before interrogation)" (BERGHUIS v. THOMPKINS ( No. 08-1470 ), 2010).
As most are already aware, if police officers who have a
suspect in custody do not issue the Miranda warning then "any statement or
confession made is presumed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the
suspect in any criminal case" and "any evidence discovered as a
result of that statement or confession will likely also be thrown out of the
case" ("Miranda" Rights and the Fifth Amendment, 2013). Below are several rules, doctrines, or
standards in regards to interrogation that Miranda protects the suspect against
self-incrimination (Miranda Law, 2003).
·
The Functional Equivalence Rule (Rhode
Island v. Innis 1980). Silence,
manipulation, "guilt trips", and any other tricks by interrogators
designed to elicit a spontaneous incrimination are the functional equivalent of
an interrogation.
·
The Deliberately-Eliciting-a-Response
Standard. High-tech listening, or
bugging, devices that are unknown to the suspect do not deliberately illicit an
incriminating response, and therefore can be used without Miranda
Warnings.
·
The Massiah Doctrin. If an undercover officer is used, and the
suspect doesn't know it's an undercover officer; Miranda does not apply. Also, if a previously Mirandized suspect is
let out on bail or held in lockup, an undercover operative can obtain
incriminating testimony thru infiltration or sharing a jail cell (Illinois v.
Perkins 1990).
Not much information was found concerning the effects of
the Miranda ruling in regards to obtaining of statements/confessions by police
but one thing is obvious. The Miranda
rule makes it all the more difficult to get a forthcoming confession from a
suspect. Once their Miranda is read, a
smart criminal will clam up while a not so smart criminal or one that does not
have their whit's about them may confess without thinking. To this reader, a confession is a confession
and "preventing foolish people from incriminating themselves is the only
purpose of Miranda, and that is a far cry from what the Fifth Amendment
requires in terms of protecting someone from being compelled to incriminate
them self" (Miranda Law, 2003) but law prevails and the suspects are
afforded this right.
The importance of the Miranda rule is so that the
individuals cannot be coerced into self incriminating themselves. The courts are concerned about making sure
statements are voluntary because a coerced "statement is not made because
of the person's free will but for some other reason" and "when that
happens, the statement is presumed unreliable" (Constitutional Law: Miranda Online). These types of violations can turn a murderer
free. Such as the Willie Green
Case. He and four others "were
accused of beating a Guatemalan immigrant to death in 2007, was first arrested
on a hindering charge but would later confess to murder once he talked with
police" where he "stated that he drove the car used by the attackers
and they robbed Lazaro Tista" (Murder Confession Thrown Out By Miranda Rights Violation, 2012). Prosecutors said he should be held
responsible for the murder but it
claimed that Greene's confession should be thrown out as there was no lawyer
present and that the man had a low intelligence level and didn't fully
understand what his Miranda Rights were when he signed a waiver of those rights
after a detective persuaded him to do so. (Murder Confession Thrown Out By Miranda Rights Violation, 2012). The murder charge was dropped but he did
plead guilty to first-degree robbery (Murder Confession Thrown Out By Miranda Rights Violation, 2012).
To conclude, this writer had a difficult time finding any
resources that showed, say, an amount of cases that had to be thrown out due to
the confession being bad because of the Miranda rule not being adhered to
properly. I would assume the impact is
subjective. Because some individuals are
in support of the Miranda rulings, therefore the cause and effect is what they
believe to be the right way to go. While
others don't agree with Miranda and feel many good cases are thrown out on
technicalities.
Works Cited
"Miranda" Rights and the Fifth Amendment. (2013). Retrieved 04 14, 2013, from Find Law:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html
BERGHUIS v.
THOMPKINS ( No. 08-1470 ). (2010).
Retrieved 04 14, 2013, from Legal Information Institute:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1470.ZS.html
Constitutional Law:
Miranda Online. (n.d.). Retrieved 04
14, 2013, from Law Enforcement Academy Santa Fe, New Mexico:
http://www.nmlea.dps.state.nm.us/legal/documents/Miranda.pdf
Kanovitz, J. R.
(2010). Constitutional Law. Albany: Anderson Publishing Company.
Miranda Law. (2003, June 25). Retrieved 04 14, 2013, from North
Carolina Wesleyan College: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect19.htm
Murder Confession
Thrown Out By Miranda Rights Violation. (2012, 07 16). Retrieved 04 14, 2013, from Umlawcampaign.com:
http://www.umlawcampaign.com/2012/07/murder-confession-thrown-out-by-miranda-rights-violation/
No comments:
Post a Comment