Miranda Warnings (Defendant must Invoke his rights)

In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court addressed the interrogration of criminal suspects by the police. The court held that an accused, held in custody, must be given the adequate and effective warnings “prior to questioning,” not merely before signing a written statement after all the custodial interrogation is complete. The failure to give timely warnings generally results in the state being required to forfeit the use of any statement obtained during that interrogation during its case-in-chief. 

 When a defendant alleges that he was not given the warnings prior to making a confession the government then has the  burden of showing that they followed the legal guidelines set forth by Miranda.

The courts have held that the Miranda warnings must be given prior to questioning a suspect who is in custody. The police can try and get around Miranda by claiming that the suspect was not in custody and they are free to leave. Generally, the rule for determining whether someone is in custody is whether a reasonable person in their circumstances would feel like they were free to leave. If the suspect had wanted to, could they have left.
Texas has actually codified the Miranda Warnings in Section 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Section indicates that any custodial statement by an accused must be either in writing or recorded and that prior to the accused making the statement he must be given the Miranda warnings indicating he has the right to an attorney.

The Supreme Court modified the Miranda ruling in a recent case Montejo v. Louisiana. In Montejo, the defendant was charged with first degree murder. He went to court and the court assigned him a court appointed attorney and read him his miranda warnings. After the court finished arraigning him, the police visited him in his jail cell and asked him if he would be willing to talk to them. The police read  Mr. Montejo his miranda warnings. Mr. Montejo then gave a full confession and wrote a letter explaining what happened. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Montejo’s confession was admissable because even though he had been appointed an attorney, Mr. Montejo never asked for an attorney and never requested to remain silent. In order the receive the protections of Miranda, a defendant must invoke them.

David Breston is a Houston defense criminal attorney. If you need a criminal defense attorney in Houston, call David Breston at 713 224 4040.