Support the Guide on Patron!

Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's the best part! Also, you can use the arrows on your keyboard to flip through pages quickly.

Use this link to buy the books, and a portion of the proceeds goes to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Join the conversation!
There are now 4 comments... what are your thoughts?
  1. Jonathan B. says

    I was under the impression the police weren’t required to unhear anything you say near them. So if she’s yelling at someone while in custody even though she invoked her right to silence andher right to attorney, does that mean the cops can’t use it?

    • That all depends on whether the suspect started speaking on their own initiative, or the police did something to make them talk. If the suspect spoke entirely on their own initiative after they invoked their right to silence and/or right to counsel, then they uninvokes those rights and the state can use anything they said as long as the police recite the Miranda warnings again. However, if the police did or said anything that they should have suspected would elicit an incriminating response, then the state cannot use that statement even if it is completely reliable and completely voluntary. Remember, the Miranda recitations are the police’s magic words that make otherwise involuntary statements admissible, and “I want a lawyer” are the suspects magic words that make otherwise voluntary statements inadmissible.

      • Also, previously, it’s been mentioned that if you say one thing now, mirandized or not, and something else in court, they can use that discrepancy against you.

  2. WJS says

    ☆ is being a little slow this time around I think. I don’t think there’s a rule anywhere that says they can only use statements you made as a result of questioning and not by yourself, but that’s what he seems to be getting at here.

Leave a Reply to Jonathan B. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Support the Guide on Patron!