Miranda Prosecution Case Study

Decent Essays
Pursuant to Miranda, the Prosecution bears the heavy burden of establishing the existence of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a suspect’s right to remain silent and to the presence or assistance of counsel, by a preponderance of the evidence. (Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 168.) As such, the validity of a Miranda waiver depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and whether the defendant was aware of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. (Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475 U.S. 422 (holding a valid waiver does not require that a defendant be informed of all information useful in making his decision or all information that might affect his decision to confess).) With that in mind, there is no requirement that a waiver be in writing. (Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 130 S.Ct. 2250.) A defendant who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights,…show more content…
(Tompkins, supra, 130 S.Ct. at 2260 (where a suspect must unambiguously state that he wants to remain silent or that he does not want to talk with the police for a valid invocation of a Miranda right).) Nonetheless, if a defendant makes an ambiguous statement that was not clearly an invocation, officers are not required to stop the interview and attempt to determine whether the suspect intended to invoke. Davis, supra, 512 U.S. 452; see also People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452 (when faced with an ambiguous or equivocal statement, officers are not required under Miranda, either to ask clarifying questions or to cease questioning altogether).) Accordingly, if a defendant decides to speak with an officer with knowledge of his rights to remain silent and to counsel, its sufficient evidence of a knowingly and intelligent implied waiver of those
Get Access