How does police use custodial interrogation




















Being read the Miranda Warning is a clue that police intend to use your answers to their questions as evidence at a trial, if that happens. They may ask you questions without reading the Miranda Warning if they are concerned for the immediate safety of others, and your answers may be used against you at a trial. Most often the question is, Do I have to respond to police questioning if I have not been read my rights? Motions for a New Trial in Criminal Cases.

Competency to Stand Trial for Criminal Defendants. Continuances in Criminal Cases. Judgments of Acquittal in Criminal Trials. Joint Trials for Criminal Defendants. Immigration Removal Proceedings and Criminal Law. Miranda Rights for Criminal Suspects. The Right to an Attorney in a Criminal Case. The Right to Silence for Criminal Suspects. Custodial Interrogations in Criminal Cases. Involuntary Confessions by Criminal Suspects.

Waiver of Miranda Rights by Criminal Suspects. Miranda Rights for Student Criminal Suspects. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule in Criminal Procedure.

Right to Record Police Officers. Arrests and Arrest Warrants. Constitutional Rights in Criminal Proceedings. The police did not read him the Miranda warnings at the time. Stansbury told the police that he had talked to the girl, that he had returned to his trailer a few hours later, and that he had left around midnight in his roommate's turquoise car. The car matched the description given by the witness. Stansbury also admitted that he previously. After a person has been taken into custody by law enforcement officials, he must be advised of his constitutional rights before the officials begin an interrogation.

Pictured is Jose Canseco in The detective inter-viewing Stansbury then terminated the conversation and read Stansbury the Miranda warnings. Stansbury was later charged with first-degree murder and other crimes. The trial court denied his motion, ruling that Stansbury had not been in custody—and thus that he had not been entitled to the Miranda warnings—until he had mentioned the turquoise car.

Before that point in the interview, the court reasoned, Stansbury had not been considered a suspect. Based on that conclusion, the trial court permitted introduction of the statements that Stansbury had made before he had mentioned the car.

Stansbury was convicted on all charges and was sentenced to death for first-degree murder. On appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed Stansbury's conviction, rejecting the "in-custody" claim that he had raised in the trial court. The state supreme court, applying an in-custody legal standard based on whether the investigation has focused on the subject, agreed with the trial court's conclusion that suspicion had focused on Stansbury only after he mentioned driving the turquoise car on the night of the crime.

Therefore, the court held, Stansbury had not been subject to custodial interrogation before that time, and in turn Miranda warnings had not been required, and his statements were admissible. The U. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. Sometimes refusing to answer questions or take tests looks suspicious. If you do not feel comfortable answering questions, you should request to have a lawyer present before being interrogated.

During a custodial interrogation, officers are not allowed to intimidate or coerce you into answering questions. While some verbal pressure is allowed, if you are bullied into giving making self-incriminating statements, the information will be inadmissible at trial.



0コメント

  • 1000 / 1000