Miranda Warnings and Interrogation

Why was Escobedo emphasized by the defense lawyers in Miranda?

Because Escobedo involved a denial of counsel during interrogation and was framed as both a 5th and 6th Amendment case.

Did the Miranda Court overrule Escobedo?

No. The Court formally reaffirmed Escobedo, saying it was rooted in both the 5th and 6th Amendments.

Despite reaffirming it, how did Miranda treat Escobedo in practice?

Escobedo was effectively abandoned. The Court replaced the 6th Amendment “focus of investigation” approach with a 5th Amendment approach focused on custodial interrogation.

What constitutional approach did Miranda adopt in place of Escobedo’s 6th Amendment theory?

A 5th Amendment self-incrimination approach based on protecting suspects from the coercion of custodial interrogation.

What sparked SCOTUS’s concern leading to Miranda?

The Court examined police interrogation manuals, which revealed highly coercive psychological techniques.

How did the Court describe custodial interrogations?

As inherently coercive and inherently compulsive situations.

Which model of the criminal justice system did the Court lean toward?

The Due Process model, focusing on preventing involuntary or compelled confessions.

Why did the Court ground Miranda in the 5th Amendment?

Because making a statement that can be used at trial turns the suspect into a “witness against himself.”

What does “custody” mean for Miranda purposes?

A full custodial arrest or equivalent restraint on freedom.

Is a traffic stop or a Terry stop “custody”?

No, unless it escalates into a formal arrest.

Is being placed in an interrogation room automatically “custody”?

No. Being in the room alone does not establish custody.

Is a person in custody when appearing before a grand jury under subpoena?

No. This is not custody for Miranda purposes.

Does being the “focus” of an investigation equal custody?

No. Focus does not trigger Miranda — this rejects the Escobedo rule.

Must officers give Miranda warnings to someone who is not in custody?

No. If there is no custody, no warnings are required.

What must officers intend in order for there to be “interrogation” under Miranda?

They must intend to elicit information — i.e., overt questioning or its functional equivalent.

Are volunteered statements subject to Miranda?

No. If the suspect blurts something out, it is admissible because there was no interrogation.

Do booking questions count as interrogation?

No. They are administrative and NOT interrogation.

Is asking for consent to search considered interrogation?

No. Asking for consent does not trigger Miranda.

Must interrogation be overt for Miranda to apply?

Yes. Interrogation must be overt, not covert.

Why does Miranda require overt interrogation?

Because Miranda was designed to regulate explicit police questioning, the setting where coercion is most direct.

If covert questioning occurs, what constitutional right might still be violated?

The 6th Amendment right to counsel — if prosecution has already begun (Massiah rule).

What must exist for Miranda warnings to be required?

Both

1. Custody AND

2. Interrogation
   must be present.
   If either is missing, Miranda does not apply.

What is the first Miranda warning?

“You have the right to remain silent.”

Can the prosecution use the suspect’s silence against them?

No, and this protection exists even though it is not stated in the warning itself.

Does a suspect have a right to know in advance what officers want to ask?

No. Miranda does not guarantee advance notice of questioning topics.

Can a suspect change their mind after talking with police?

Yes. A suspect can re-invoke silence even after initially speaking (though this is not stated in the warning).

What is the second Miranda warning?

“Anything you say can and will be used against you in court.”

What does the second warning emphasize?

Nothing said is “off the record.” Any statement can be used against the suspect.

What misconception do defendants often have about claiming innocence?

They mistakenly believe a statement claiming innocence will be used at trial, even though it usually isn’t helpful or strategic.

Do some defendants think they must write a statement to be incriminating?

Yes—many wrongly assume that oral statements aren’t incriminating, but they very much are.

What is the third Miranda warning?

“You have the right to an attorney and to have your attorney present during questioning.”

What constitutional basis supports this right to counsel during interrogation?

The 5th Amendment (protection against compelled self-incrimination), not the 6th Amendment.

Is the right merely to have an attorney, or to have the attorney present?

Present during questioning — this is critical.

Can the government use a suspect’s request for a lawyer as evidence against them?

No. Invoking the right cannot be used as incriminating evidence.

What is the fourth Miranda warning?

“If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”

Must an attorney be immediately available at the station for the warning to be valid?

No. There is no requirement for a “stationhouse attorney.”

When is counsel actually appointed for an indigent suspect?

Once charged with a crime.

What must a waiver be under Miranda?

Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

ho bears the burden to prove the waiver is valid?

The government — and it is a heavy burden.

Can waiver be presumed from silence or from the fact a confession was made?

No. Silence or a confession alone is not enough.

Does there need to be an affirmative statement originally?

Yes — originally SCOTUS required an affirmative indication the suspect waived their rights.

What is the current rule regarding waiver?

Courts now allow waiver to be inferred by conduct, a dilution of original Miranda.

How do waiver and invocation relate?

They are opposite sides of the same coin: either the suspect gives up rights or asserts them.

What happens when a suspect invokes a Miranda right?

Questioning must stop immediately.

What is the effect of invoking the right to remain silent?

Interrogation must stop.

When is counsel likely to appear after invocation?

Often not until court, due to appointment procedures.

Do ambiguous statements invoke Miranda rights?

No. Invocation must be clear and unambiguous.

If rights are invoked, can the suspect later choose to waive them?

Yes. Invocation does not permanently bar questioning.

What must occur before a custodial statement can be admitted in court?

Warnings + valid waiver.

Are statements obtained after a Miranda violation admissible?

No. They must be excluded.

Does FOTPT apply to Miranda violations?

Yes—evidence derived from an unwarned, illegally obtained statement is treated as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Can the prosecution argue the suspect already knew their rights?

No. Rights must be read — subjective awareness is irrelevant.

What bright-line rule governs Miranda warnings?

Warnings are mandatory, and without them, any waiver is invalid.

How did police initially view Miranda?

As the end of confessions.

What happened once police adapted?

Miranda became easy to use, a bright-line rule, and officers learned how to work within it.

How do officers strategically present the warnings?

By framing them as if they are helping the suspect (“I’m required to tell you this…”), making suspects more willing to talk.

Can officers innovate or slightly modify Miranda warnings?

Yes — so long as they convey the substance of all four warnings.

What are the standard follow-up questions on a Miranda card?

• “Do you understand each of these rights as I have read them to you?”

• “After hearing these rights, do you wish to speak with us now?”

What is a voluntary statement form used for?

To document the suspect’s waiver (e.g., “I knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive these rights”).

Is a voluntary statement form admissible?

Yes — it can be admitted to prove the waiver’s validity.