Compare and contrast the Miranda rights and those the Supreme Court applied in the Massiah case for suspects who have been indicted. Poorly phrased and

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Officers must give the Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogation. In the case of a suspect who waives the Miranda rights, he/she retains the right to demand that the questioning stop and/or request an attorney. These rights can be asserted at any time. The Miranda rights apply as long as the suspect is in custody. Once the suspect is released, a Miranda wavier is not required.
In Massiah v. United States, the Supreme Court held that interrogation of a defendant who had been indicted and released on bail violated the right to counsel that applies from arraignment through trial and sentencing. A later decision (Illinois v. Patterson (1988)) held that a Miranda warnings and subsequent waiver was adequate to waive the Massiah rights. This waiver can be done without an attorney present.
Prior to arraignment, only Miranda applies; if the suspect is not in custody, he/she has no right to be warned about applicable constitutional rights. If the defendant is in custody, including being in jail awaiting arraignment or indictment, the Miranda rights apply. If the defendant remains in custody after arraignment, both Miranda and Massiah apply; a Miranda waiver can waive both rights. If the defendant is released from custody prior to trial, only the Massiah rights apply.