Notice...

Please be advised: The WicBury Crapper and it’s staff take no responsibility for metering, publishing, filtering, or maintaining comments from our readers. Although we do our best screen most comments, some harassing, ignorant, or offensive comments may be posted by our readers.All comments are the sole responsibility of their respective commenters. By reading this blog you expressly consent to not being offended by the information contained herein and agree not to take legal action for any information contained herein against any member of the WicBury Crapper or it's staff or board. If this blog or any of it's content offends you, please leave now.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

AN ANSWER (Maybe Not The Only One) TO THE CONFESSION HYPOTHETICAL

All of the answers submitted were good ones. The outcome hinges on whether the failure to advise the defendant of Miranda warnings was inadvertent. In the hypothetical, the Detective was simply distracted and forgot to advise the defendant of Miranda Warnings. This does not, of necessity, affect the voluntariness of the confession, assuming none of the other factors (threats, etc.) were present. The best answer is that the portion of the statement given pre-Miranda should and would be suppressed as a "mere violation" of Miranda. That portion of the statement might still be admissible should the defendant take the stand and testify to contrary facts.

The portion of the statement taken after the Detective advised the defendant of Miranda would be admissible in view of Oregon v. Elstad and several Maryland cases, State v. Jackson and others following suit. Keep in mind, however, that the state courts have the option of deciding voluntariness under either state constitutional or state common law as opposed to Federal Constitutional grounds. Some of the highest state courts decide cases based on state constitutional law if they do not like recent Supreme Court holdings. Therefore the answer may be different in the other states which would do their own analysis of the law of that state.

All in all, under the circumstances, this is a win for the Good Guys. However, I will add the following warning: A deliberate decision to elicit a confession without Miranda followed by advice of rights in order to secure a "full blown" legitimate confession will not work. Maryland cases have considered what used to be a routine practice by some law enforcement agencies in obtaining confessions in this manner, and the Courts have held that a confession elicited under those circumstances will not be admissible.

Other states may use the information obtained in Maryland to further their investigations.

The Defendant's so-called luck has run out. Off to the Maryland Penitentiary he goes.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

excellent. these are really helping me understand how to be a better cop.

Anonymous said...

I like reading these too. It makes you think about what you are doing while working in order to prepare a good end case. Thanks Counsel. Who knew that a crapper could have it's own lawyer? Still keep up the great work guys.