Dave has been arrested in connection with a recent string of burglaries. While he was in custody, he was shown falsified laboratory results that connected him with the crimes. Based on the false evidence, Dave confessed to the crimes during

Question

interrogation. Dave was then given his Miranda warnings and booked. What constitutional rights may Dave assert to prevent his confession being used against him at trial? Does the state have any defenses available? Discuss fully.

Answer 1

Under the Miranda rule, a statement made by a defendant in custody is admissible only if the defendant was informed prior to police interrogation of his or her constitutional right to remain silent and to have counsel present. If, however, the police mistakenly forget to read an accused his or her Miranda rights during the first stage of an interrogation, the post-Miranda confession may be admissible. Additionally, while the courts have usually held that misleading or false verbal statements that induce the suspect to confess are not grounds for invalidating the confession under the due process clause, the text discusses a case in which the court invalidated a confession elicited through the use of fabricated and false laboratory reports linking the defendant to the crime. Before a confession of guilt will be admitted into evidence, the trial judge must determine whether the confession was voluntarily made, as required by the Due Process Clause.