Invocation and Waiver of Miranda Rights in Criminal Procedur
Miranda Rights: A Quick Recap
Miranda rights arise from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The Court held that before a suspect is subjected to custodial interrogation, they must be informed of certain rights, including:
The right to remain silent.
Anything they say can be used against them in court.
The right to have an attorney present.
If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed.
Invocation of Miranda Rights
Invocation means the suspect chooses to exercise these rights — specifically, the right to remain silent or the right to counsel.
1. Invocation of the Right to Remain Silent
When a suspect explicitly states they wish to remain silent, the police must immediately stop questioning.
This was clarified in Michigan v. Mosley (1975): The Court said that once the suspect invokes the right to silence, police cannot continue the interrogation about the same crime unless the suspect initiates further communication.
However, if after a "significant" break, police re-Mirandize the suspect and the suspect voluntarily talks, the statements may be admissible.
2. Invocation of the Right to Counsel
When a suspect requests an attorney, the interrogation must stop immediately until an attorney is present.
This was emphasized in Edwards v. Arizona (1981): The Court ruled that once a suspect requests counsel, police cannot re-initiate questioning until the attorney is present unless the suspect voluntarily waives the right.
The request for counsel must be clear and unequivocal. For example, "I want a lawyer" clearly invokes the right, but ambiguous statements might not.
Waiver of Miranda Rights
Waiver means the suspect knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently gives up their Miranda rights and agrees to speak without a lawyer.
Elements of a Valid Waiver
Voluntary: The waiver is not the result of coercion, threats, or deception.
Knowing: The suspect understands the rights and the consequences of waiving them.
Intelligent: The suspect has the mental capacity to understand and waive their rights.
Key Cases on Waiver
Miranda v. Arizona itself emphasized that waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
In North Carolina v. Butler (1979), the Court held that waiver can be inferred from a suspect’s actions and words, even if the suspect does not explicitly state “I waive my rights.”
In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Court ruled that silence after Miranda warnings does not invoke the right to remain silent; the suspect must clearly invoke it. Moreover, answering questions after being read Miranda warnings can imply waiver.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Requirement | Key Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Invocation of Silence | Must be clear and unambiguous | Michigan v. Mosley |
| Invocation of Counsel | Must be clear; interrogation stops immediately | Edwards v. Arizona |
| Waiver | Voluntary, knowing, intelligent | Miranda v. Arizona, North Carolina v. Butler, Berghuis v. Thompkins |
Putting It All Together
Police must advise suspects of their Miranda rights before custodial interrogation.
If a suspect invokes the right to silence or counsel, interrogation must stop immediately.
Interrogation can resume only if the suspect initiates communication or validly waives their rights.
Waiver must be clear and voluntary; otherwise, statements obtained may be excluded in court.mbiguous expression and the context.
RELATED Blog
0 comments