Also known as: incriminating statements
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
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.
After 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.
Police 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.
The 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…