Miranda Rights

[ametha1]

A close relative of mine was arrested in the state of Wisconsin in August 2007 for a crime that he was accused of in California in July of 2006. He was questioned before his arrest by a Milwaukee, WI police detective and was not given his miranda rights. He was later arrested and taken back to California. He is facing a jury trial in January and the prosecution is flying the Milwaukee detective out to CA to testify against him. I am wondering if she is able to testify against him when he was not give the right to remain silent or advised that what he says will be used against him in a court of law? This seems to violate the basic principals of the Miranda rights.

 

[BoredAtty]

A close relative of mine was arrested in the state of Wisconsin in August 2007 for a crime that he was accused of in California in July of 2006. He was questioned before his arrest by a Milwaukee, WI police detective and was not given his miranda rights. He was later arrested and taken back to California. He is facing a jury trial in January and the prosecution is flying the Milwaukee detective out to CA to testify against him. I am wondering if she is able to testify against him when he was not give the right to remain silent or advised that what he says will be used against him in a court of law? This seems to violate the basic principals of the Miranda rights.

Miranda's warning requirements apply only to "custodial interrogation."

Miranda's "in custody" requirement is met if questioning was conducted in custodial settings that have inherently coercive pressures that tend to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak.

The test used in determining whether a defendant was in custody is an objective one that (a) asks whether a reasonable person would have understood herself to be subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest, and (b) focuses upon the presence or absence of affirmative indications that the defendant was not free to leave. An accused is in custody when, even in the absence of an actual arrest, law enforcement officials act or speak in a manner that conveys the message that they would not permit the accused to leave.

So, the answer depends on the specific facts surrounding your relative's questioning.

 

[ametha1]

So based on your response if the detectives came to his job and he was questioned he should have known he had the right to leave and not answer any questions.

 

[CJane]

So based on your response if the detectives came to his job and he was questioned he should have known he had the right to leave and not answer any questions.

IMO? Yes. And, if he's seen enough cop shows to think he should have been read his Miranda rights, he's seen enough of them to know that he could have said "I would be more comfortable with an attorney present"

 

[ametha1]

What is IMO?

 

[CdwJava]

What is IMO?

"In My Opinion"

- Carl

 

[ametha1]

OK....thanks for the responses.

 

[BoredAtty]

So based on your response if the detectives came to his job and he was questioned he should have known he had the right to leave and not answer any questions.

Not necessarily. As I said, it depends on the specific facts. Was he questioned in the back of the squad car? Was he questioned in handcuffs? Was he freely standing there answering questions as if he were talking to any Joe Blow on the street?

If it's the latter, then the answer is 'yes, he should have known that he could have kept his mouth shut.'

 

[ametha1]

Yes, he was freely standing there. He was not in the back of a police car or in hand cuffs. Thanks for responding

 

[VeronicaLodge]

and just fyi, the miranda rights reading doesnt give you the rights, you already have them, they just inform you of them and there is law stating when that information must be given. but most people complaining of not being read their miranda rights already knew what they were.

 

[ametha1]

OK...thanks. I don't think it will really make a difference in his case as he made no confession I just think the police were in general a little shady in this. But I supposed they have to be if they want to solve crimes.