WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court’s splintered ruling allowing a witness’ pre-arrest silence to be introduced at trial — its latest decision carving out more of the contours of defendants’ well-known right to remain silent — seemed at first blush to be a devastating blow to defense attorneys and their clients.
WASHINGTON — In a major ruling Monday on the breadth of pre-arrest Miranda protections, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a splintered decision that the silence of a person being voluntarily questioned by police can be introduced at trial if the subject did not specifically assert his or her right to remain silent to police.
WASHINGTON – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to struggle with the question of whether the silence of a suspect who has neither been arrested nor placed in police custody can later be used against him at trial.
A high school student’s Miranda rights were not violated when a vice principal interrogated him in the presence of a police officer, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a conviction.
A new tool measures how well a defendant understands Miranda warnings.
A felony murder suspect made his desire for a lawyer sufficiently clear to require police to terminate their interrogation, the en banc 9th Circuit has ruled in reversing the denial of habeas relief.
A criminal defendant’s station house confession was not the product of an impermissible “two-stage” interrogation technique employed by police, the 2nd Circuit has ruled in reversing a suppression order.
Telling a suspect that he would be able to return home after questioning regardless of what he said did not render his confession inadmissible at trial, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled in affirming the Court of Appeals.
Police violated an arrestee’s right against self incrimination by inviting him to give his “side of the story” before giving him his Miranda rights, the Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a conviction.