Also known as: knowingly and intelligently waive · knowing and intelligent waiver · knowing and intelligent waivers · knowing intelligent voluntary waiver · Miranda waiver
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A relinquishment of constitutional rights that occurs only when the defendant fully understands the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of forgoing it. Courts assess the validity of such a waiver under the totality of the circumstances including the defendant's background, experience, and the clarity of any advisement provided.
Kelsey Kirk was indicted and appeared with appointed counsel. Investigators later questioned her without counsel present after an abbreviated rights recitation. She gave a detailed statement. At trial the prosecution seeks to use the statement only to impeach her testimony denying involvement.
Khadija Khan received full Miranda warnings at the station and signed a waiver form. She then answered questions for two hours and confessed. Her attorney later argues the waiver was invalid because she had no prior arrests.
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 caseKamala Krishnan appeared in court for a judicial bypass hearing under the statute. The judge advised her of the right to appointed counsel. She declined representation and proceeded alone after stating she understood the consequences.
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.
View caseKevin Kane faced a competency determination before trial. The court allocated the burden to him to prove incompetence. He argued he could not have knowingly waived a hearing because any incompetence would prevent a valid waiver.
In 1984, Teofilo Medina, Jr., stole a gun from a pawnshop in Santa Ana, California. Over the following weeks, he committed multiple armed robberies of gas stations, a drive-in dairy, and a market, during which he murdered three employees and shot at two passersby. He was apprehended less than a month after the crime spree began and charged with three counts of first-degree murder and other offenses. Before trial, Medina's counsel moved for a competency hearing under California Penal Code section 1368, expressing uncertainty about Medina's ability to participate in the proceedings. The trial court granted the motion, and a six-day hearing was held before a jury. During the hearing, the jury heard conflicting testimony from multiple psychiatrists and psychologists regarding Medina's mental condition, including diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia and depression, as well as observations of his verbal and physical outbursts, such as overturning the counsel table. The trial court instructed the jury that Medina was presumed mentally competent and bore the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence under California Penal Code section 1369(f). The jury found Medina competent to stand trial. At the conclusion of the guilt phase, petitioner was found guilty of all three counts of first-degree murder and lesser offenses. A sanity hearing was held, and the jury found that petitioner was sane at the time of the offenses. At the penalty phase, the jury found that the murders were premeditated and deliberate and returned a verdict of death. On direct appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Medina later filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court, which appointed a referee for an evidentiary hearing; the referee found Medina had been competent, and the court adopted those findings. Medina then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which was denied, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the constitutionality of the state statute allocating the burden of proof on competency to the defendant.
View caseKarina Kovacs gave a stationhouse confession after warnings. Congress later passed a statute purporting to make voluntariness the sole test. The court applied the knowing and intelligent waiver standard from Miranda rather than the statute.
Petitioner Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the course of committing a crime of violence. Before trial, Dickerson moved to suppress a statement he had made at a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office on the grounds that he had not received Miranda warnings before being interrogated. The District Court granted his motion to suppress, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That court reversed the District Court's suppression order. It agreed that petitioner had not received Miranda warnings before making his statement but held that 18 U.S.C. § 3501 governed the admissibility of the statement. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding and that Congress could therefore have the final say on admissibility. Two years after Miranda was decided, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which provides that a confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given and directs the trial judge to consider specified factors in determining voluntariness. Because of the importance of the questions raised by the Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseKaren Keller's appointed counsel had previously represented the victim. The trial court did not inquire into the conflict. Keller later claimed she could not have knowingly and intelligently waived the right to conflict-free counsel without full disclosure.
In March 1992, Timothy Hall was found dead in Newport News, Virginia, with his throat cut and evidence of sodomy. Police arrested Walter Mickens days later on murder charges. The same juvenile court judge who had appointed Bryan Saunders to represent Hall on unrelated assault and battery charges appointed Saunders to represent Mickens on April 6, 1992. Saunders had met with Hall for fifteen to thirty minutes the week before the murder, and the judge did not inquire into any potential conflict from the prior representation. Mickens's trial occurred in 1993. The Commonwealth presented overwhelming evidence of guilt, the jury convicted Mickens of capital murder, and it sentenced him to death. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 1994. In June 1998, Mickens filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Federal habeas counsel discovered Saunders's prior representation of Hall when a clerk mistakenly produced the confidential juvenile file. Mickens alleged that Saunders's conflict of interest violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the petition, concluding that Mickens had not shown the conflict adversely affected Saunders's representation. A panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial. The en banc Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the trial judge's failure to inquire into the potential conflict required automatic reversal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseCourts examine the totality of the circumstances including the defendant's background, experience with the justice system, the clarity of the rights advisement, and whether the defendant understood the consequences of proceeding without counsel. Silence or failure to object does not substitute for affirmative evidence of understanding.
Supporting sources
Yes. Statements taken in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be used to impeach a defendant's testimony if they were voluntary and the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver, even though the statements cannot be introduced in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
Supporting sources
No. Miranda adequacy is judged by an objective standard of whether the warnings reasonably convey the rights. A suspect's later subjective testimony about misunderstanding does not require suppression when the warnings tracked language previously approved by the Supreme Court.
Supporting sources
No. A valid waiver may be implied from the suspect's words and conduct after proper warnings, provided the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The absence of a written form does not automatically invalidate the waiver.
Supporting sources