Under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, an individual has the right not to incriminate him- or herself. The United States Supreme Court has held that, in order to comply with the Fifth Amendment, an individual who is in custody and being interrogated must be provided their Miranda warnings. If law enforcement does not provide a defendant who is undergoing custodial interrogation their Miranda warnings, the prosecution may not use any statements obtained from that custodial interrogation in the prosecution’s case in chief at trial.
Being in custody does not necessarily mean that an individual is in handcuffs or at a police station. Whether a person is in custody for purposes of Miranda is determined by whether a person has been deprived of their freedom in a significant way. If law enforcement officers have not complied with their obligations under Miranda, a defendant may bring a motion to suppress the statements. Even if a defendant has not been provided their Miranda rights, any statement made by a defendant may not be introduced into evidence at trial unless the statement was made voluntarily. In other words, a coerced confession may not be used against a defendant. It is the prosecution’s burden to demonstrate that an individual knowingly and intelligently waived their privilege against self-incrimination.
A motion to suppress can be brought on the basis that either the waiver of Miranda rights was not voluntary, or that it was not knowing and intelligent.
Free Attorney Consultation.
To discuss your case with me, lawyer Andres Guevara, call 888-265-0044 or fill out the contact form below. My law office is in Denver.
Filed under: Constitutional Law, Criminal Cases | Leave a Comment »
