Miranda Violations Have Significant Consequences in an Oklahoma Criminal Case
The impact of Miranda rights violations on a criminal case in Oklahoma can be significant, potentially affecting the admissibility of evidence and the overall outcome of the case. Here’s a detailed look at what Miranda rights are, the consequences of their violation, and the potential outcomes in Oklahoma criminal cases.
Understanding Miranda Rights
We all know at least something about Miranda rights from police dramas on T.V. We know that police are required to read you your rights, even if we don’t know the import of those rights. These important rights come from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to inform suspects of their rights before conducting a custodial interrogation. Miranda rights must be read and respected by law enforcement officers.
In essence, before any custodial interrogation, law enforcement must inform a suspect of their rights, which include:
-
- The right to remain silent.
- The warning that anything said can be used against them in court.
- The right to an attorney.
- The right to have an attorney appointed if they cannot afford one.
All of these rights stem from the court’s decision in Miranda, and all of these rights are important not only to the suspect but also to the rule of law. They are meant to prevent abusive and coercive police conduct against suspects.
When Miranda Rights Apply
Miranda rights are required to be read when a suspect is in custody but before a suspect is made subject to interrogation. Custody means the suspect’s freedom of movement is restrained to a degree associated with formal arrest even if you are not formally arrested. If you are not free to leave, it is tantamount to custody for Miranda purposes. In this context, interrogation means direct questioning or its functional equivalent that is likely to elicit an incriminating response.
These rights are important to know. All too often, police will attempt to skirt Miranda in varying ways. It is critical to understand that you do not need to answer their questions, that if you do, what you say can and will be used against you, and most importantly, that you have the right to an attorney. Once you invoke that right, police are not to ask you any other questions without your attorney present, absent a knowing and valid waiver of your Miranda rights.
Consequences of Miranda Violations
Miranda violations come in two basic groups: the failure to give the Miranda warnings, and continuing to interrogate a suspect after the suspect has invoked their right to an attorney. In both cases, evidence obtained by police will be inadmissible. If Miranda warnings are not given, any statement or confession made by the suspect during custodial interrogation may be deemed inadmissible in court. This is known as the exclusionary rule. Likewise, any statement made by the suspect after they have invoked their right to an attorney will be excluded unless the suspect waives their right. In addition, all evidence derived from an illegally obtained statement may also be inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
This is critical for the defense. If the suppressed statements or derived evidence are central to the prosecution’s case and cannot be replaced by other evidence, the case may be dismissed for lack of admissible evidence.
Legal Process for Addressing Violations
When a violation has occurred, your defense attorney files a motion to suppress the statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights and all other evidence that is the fruit of the poisonous tree. This motion argues that the statements should be excluded from evidence. The court then holds a hearing to determine whether your rights were violated and whether the statements should be suppressed.
To prevail at the hearing, the prosecution must prove that the suspect was properly advised of their Miranda rights and that any waiver of those rights was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Any films or taped evidence that shows a lack of adequate compliance with Miranda is helpful to the defense at this hearing. Likewise, any witnesses at the scene who can corroborate the defense position can be helpful. Finally, if the police have tape-recorded the interrogation, a transcript of that recording may be appended to your motion.
Miranda Issues and Oklahoma Case Law Example
State v. Post, 779 P.2d 599 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) is an important case on Miranda rights. In this case, the defendant, Post, was interrogated by police officers while in custody. During the interrogation, Post made incriminating statements. Post then argued that his statements should be suppressed because his Miranda rights were violated.
Three questions were at issue in Post:
- Whether Post was properly informed of his Miranda rights;
- Whether Post’s statements were made voluntarily and with a full understanding of his rights; and
- Whether the police continued to interrogate Post after he invoked his right to remain silent or requested an attorney.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that the statements made by Post were inadmissible because his Miranda rights were violated. The court found that Post was not adequately informed of his rights and that the interrogation continued despite Post invoking his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that suspects are fully informed of their rights and that any waiver of those rights must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The court also highlighted that once a suspect invokes their right to remain silent or requests an attorney, all interrogation must cease until an attorney is present or the suspect reinitiates communication with the police.
The issues of a continuing interrogation and waiver are among the most litigated and contentious issues in the Miranda rule area. Police often “resurrect” an interrogation after a detainee has asked for an attorney. They may do it casually, and “assume” that a willing response constitutes a waiver. This can be a direct violation of your Miranda rights.
Strategic Considerations for Defense Attorneys
When Miranda issues arise, your attorney must evaluate whether you were in “custody” for Miranda purposes at the time of the interrogation. Factors considered may include the location of the interrogation, its duration, and any restraints on freedom during the interrogation. When waiver is an issue, your attorney will need to evaluate whether your waiver of Miranda rights was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Factors such as age, mental capacity, intoxication, and coercion may be relevant.
Violations of Miranda rights can have a profound impact on your criminal case in Oklahoma. These violations can lead to the suppression of incriminating statements and potentially derivative evidence, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case. This can lead to case dismissals or favorable plea deals for the defense.
Understanding the application of Miranda rights, filing appropriate suppression motions, and strategically challenging the admissibility of evidence are crucial components of an effective defense strategy in cases involving Miranda violations. Consulting with an experienced Tulsa criminal defense attorney is essential for navigating these complex legal issues.
Consult with a Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney
This area of the law is one you should explore with your attorney. The Tulsa Criminal Defense Law Firm takes pride in zealously representing our clients. Your rights are important and we take your rights seriously. Contact us today for personalized assistance with any questions you have concerning Miranda rights violations. Call today at 918-256-3400.
We are dedicated to providing reliable legal advice and representing clients throughout the criminal process. Together, we can navigate the complexities of the criminal court process and work towards a positive outcome.