72. Should the court suppress the statements?

A man was in jail after being arrested for burglary. When the police attempted to question him, the man invoked his Miranda rights and refused to answer any questions. The man was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to a prison term for the burglary. Three years later, while the man was serving his prison sentence for the burglary, a police detective from a nearby town questioned him about an unsolved homicide. The detective did not know that the man had invoked Miranda at an earlier time. The man waived his Miranda rights and made several incriminating statements to the detective. When he was later charged with the homicide, the man moved to suppress these statements, claiming that his earlier refusal to waive his Miranda rights should have been honored.

No, because the detective was unaware that the man had originally invoked his Miranda rights
No, because the man’s prior invocation of his Miranda rights did not preclude the later interrogation
Yes, because the man had earlier invoked his Miranda rights, and the police were not permitted to resume questioning, even after a time lapse of years
Yes, because the man was incarcerated, and his earlier invocation of his Miranda rights shielded him from further questioning until he was released

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

B is correct. The prohibition against questioning a detainee after he has invoked his right to counsel lasts the entire time the detainee is in custody for interrogation purposes, plus 14 more days after the detainee has returned to his «normal life.» After returning to his «normal life,» the detainee can be questioned regarding the same matter upon receiving a fresh set of Miranda warnings. While in prison, returning back to the general population or one's cell constitutes «normal life.» Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010). After an invocation of the right to remain silent is invoked, the right must be scrupulously honored and a significant time must have passed before questioning can resume.

In this case, the man invoked his rights three years ago while he was being questioned by a different police department in a different town. Since then, the man has been in prison. The man is not in custody for the purpose of interrogation and has returned to his «normal life» (prison is his normal life) for more than 14 days. Therefore, the man is not still protected by his prior invocation and his statements should not be suppressed.

A is incorrect. The reason the man's statements should not be suppressed is because his prior invocation is no longer valid. Whether the detective was aware of the man's prior invocation is irrelevant.

C is incorrect. The prohibition against questioning a detainee after he has invoked his rights lasts the entire time the detainee is in custody for interrogation purposes, plus 14 days after the detainee has returned to his normal life. It would thus be an incorrect application of the law to uphold a prior invocation following a term of years after the man's return to normal life.

D is incorrect. While in prison, returning back to the general population or one's cell constitutes normal life. The man was no longer in custody for the purpose of interrogation and had returned to his normal life (prison is his normal life) for more than 14 days. Therefore, the man is not still protected by his prior invocation.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

72. Should the court suppress the statements?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired