List three situations in which the Supreme Court allows the police to question a suspect more than once. Which of these, if any, do you think follows the spirit of the original Miranda decision?
What will be an ideal response?
Three situations in which the Supreme Court allows the police to question a suspect after the police previously questioned them would be: [Note: student only needs to list three of these]
• Prior Interrogation without Valid Miranda Warnings− If the first interrogation session was conducted without a valid Miranda waiver, there needs to be a lapse of time between the two sessions. The Supreme Court has not set a specific length of time that satisfies this requirement. If there is enough time so that the suspect will not be influenced by the prior session, a new session can be conducted. The first thing that must be done at the new session is administer the Miranda warnings correctly. If the suspect makes a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, the officers may question him/her as if it were the first interrogation session.
• Prior Interrogation with Valid Miranda Warnings− If the Miranda warnings were administered correctly prior to the previous interrogation session, the procedures are fairly simple. The investigators are required to administer the Miranda warnings again only if the suspect may have forgotten his/her rights. The Supreme Court has not dictated an exact procedure. The investigator usually asks the suspect if he/she remembers the Miranda warnings. If the response is positive, the interrogation can resume without giving a new set of warnings. If the suspect indicates in any way that he/she does not remember the warnings, the investigator should give them again. If the suspect waives his/her rights, the interrogation can continue.
• Suspect Invoked Right to Remain Silent− In Michigan v. Mosley the Supreme Court established guidelines for resuming questioning after the suspect invoked the right to remain silent. There must be a substantial amount of time between the end of the first session and the attempt to start another one. The suspect must realize that his/her rights are being scrupulously honored, but the police do not need to arrange for an attorney. In Mosley there was a 2 hour time period during which the suspect remained in a holding cell. After the time has lapsed, the interrogator must start with new Miranda warnings. If the suspect is willing to talk, the investigators can ask questions until the suspect stops the interrogation or the officers decide to discontinue it.
• Suspect Invoked Right to Attorney− If a suspect requests an attorney during interrogation, the questioning must stop. There must be an attorney present if the officers attempt to resume questioning (Minnick v. Mississippi). The first thing that must be done is obtain a Miranda waiver. It is highly likely that the attorney will instruct the suspect not to waive his/her rights, and if he/she waives the rights, not to answer any questions. For this reason, police rarely attempt to resume questioning after a suspect requests an attorney. The Supreme Court ruled that invoking the right to counsel stops questioning regarding any crime by any agency.
You might also like to view...
In which country did an event occur that led to the 2011 "Arab Spring?"
a. Libya b. Algeria c. Syria d. Tunisia
Briefly explain the process of marking an object of evidence for identification purposes.
What will be an ideal response?
Which of the following sources of intelligence would include interviews and interrogations?
A) Decision making B) Strategic targeting C) Crime prevention D) Intelligence gathering
Which of the following statements is INCORRECT?
a. Courts generally recognize a mistake of fact defense in general-intent crimes only if the mistake is a reasonable one. b. An unreasonable mistake may be asserted as a defense to a specific-intent crime. c. A bona fide mistake of fact is generally considered a defense to a strict liability offense. d. At common law a defendant who made a bona fide mistake of fact could defend on that basis.