Also known as: incriminating statements
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statement that tends to establish the guilt of the person making it. Such a statement triggers Sixth Amendment protection when police deliberately elicit it from a charged defendant without counsel or a valid waiver.
Federal agents arranged for an informant to exchange encrypted messages with Ira Irving after his indictment for insider trading. During the exchange the informant steered the conversation toward the specific trades named in the indictment. Ira made several statements acknowledging his use of inside information. The court suppressed those statements because they were deliberately elicited after the right to counsel attached.
After indictment police placed a recording device on Isla Ireland's co-defendant and instructed him to discuss the charged bank robbery. During the conversation Isla made statements detailing her role in planning the getaway. The government later sought to introduce the recording at trial. The court excluded the statements because they were obtained through deliberate elicitation in the absence of counsel.
Following Iain Irons's indictment for securities fraud, agents visited his office and questioned him at length about the charged transactions. No counsel was present and no waiver was obtained. Iain provided detailed answers about the false filings. The trial court ruled the statements inadmissible because adversary proceedings had already begun.
Officers transported Idris Ives after his arrest on murder charges and deliberately engaged him in conversation about the victim's location. Idris revealed where he had buried the body. Searchers later recovered the remains at that site. The statements were treated as incriminating evidence obtained in violation of the right to counsel.
On December 24, 1968, ten-year-old Pamela Powers disappeared from a YMCA building in Des Moines, Iowa, where she had accompanied her parents to watch an athletic contest. Williams was seen leaving the YMCA carrying a large bundle wrapped in a blanket. A fourteen-year-old boy who helped open his car door reported seeing two skinny white legs inside it. Williams' car was found the next day 160 miles east in Davenport, Iowa. Items of the child's clothing along with an army blanket were recovered at a rest stop on Interstate 80 near Grinnell between Des Moines and Davenport. A warrant issued for Williams' arrest. On December 26 the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation organized a search with two hundred volunteers divided into teams that began twenty-one miles east of Grinnell and moved westward through Poweshiek County into Jasper County. Searchers checked all roads, ditches, culverts, abandoned farm buildings, and other places where a small child's body could be hidden. The search area was marked off in grids on highway maps. Williams surrendered to police in Davenport and was arraigned. After his attorneys arranged for no questioning during transport, two Des Moines detectives took him into custody for the return drive. During the trip Detective Leaming spoke to Williams about predicted snow and the parents' right to a Christian burial. Williams then directed the officers to the child's shoes, the blanket, and ultimately the body itself. The body lay next to a culvert in a ditch beside a gravel road in Polk County. It was roughly two and one-half miles from where one search team had stopped when the search was suspended at 3 p.m. Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. At his first trial the evidence of the body was admitted over objection. He was convicted. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court reversed in Brewer v. Williams on the ground that the statements were obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. At the second trial in 1977 the prosecution introduced evidence of the condition of the body, articles and photographs of clothing, and autopsy results without offering Williams' statements or showing that he had directed police to the body. The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the body would have been discovered within a short time in essentially the same condition by the continuing search. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. On federal habeas corpus the District Court denied relief after an independent review. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseAfter arresting Idina Iverson for driving under the influence, officers directed a physician to draw a blood sample without her consent. Laboratory analysis revealed a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit. The results constituted incriminating evidence used to prove intoxication at trial. The Court held that the physical evidence did not implicate the privilege against self-incrimination.
Petitioner Schmerber and a companion had been drinking at a tavern and bowling alley on November 12, 1964. Petitioner was driving from the bowling alley about midnight when the car skidded, crossed the road, and struck a tree. Both petitioner and his companion were injured and taken to a hospital for treatment. A police officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident smelled liquor on petitioner's breath and testified that petitioner's eyes were bloodshot, watery, and sort of a glassy appearance. The officer saw petitioner again at the hospital within two hours of the accident and noticed similar symptoms of drunkenness. He thereupon informed petitioner that he was under arrest and that he was entitled to the services of an attorney, that he could remain silent, and that anything he told the officer would be used against him in evidence. At the direction of a police officer, a blood sample was then withdrawn from petitioner's body by a physician at the hospital. The chemical analysis of this sample revealed a percent by weight of alcohol in his blood at the time of the offense which indicated intoxication. The report of this analysis was admitted in evidence at the trial. Petitioner objected to receipt of this evidence of the analysis on the ground that the blood had been withdrawn despite his refusal, on the advice of his counsel, to consent to the test. Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles Municipal Court of the criminal offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Appellate Department of the California Superior Court rejected petitioner's contentions and affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View casePolice took Isaac Irving into custody on suspicion of kidnapping and questioned him for two hours in a stationhouse room. No warnings were given before the officers asked about the child's whereabouts. Isaac eventually described the location of the victim. The resulting statements were ruled inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View caseThe Sixth Amendment prohibits deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements from a defendant after formal charges have been filed and the right to counsel has attached. Statements obtained without counsel or a valid waiver are inadmissible at trial.
No. The protection against deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements is limited to post-charge situations. Pre-charge custodial questioning is governed by Fifth Amendment Miranda rules rather than the Sixth Amendment.
Yes. A voluntary statement taken without full warnings cannot be used in the prosecution's case in chief but remains admissible to impeach a defendant who testifies inconsistently at trial.
…all thus share salient features—incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights. An understanding of the nature and setting of this in-custody interrogation is essential to our decisions today. The difficulty in depicting…