Introduction
In the United States of America constitution, the 5th amendment provides for the rights of a person charged with a capital offense or an infamous crime. This provides for the right to a trial by a grand jury except in cases of land and naval forces when in service in time of war or public danger, or if a person active in a militia group. It also provides that such a person should not be subjected to trial twice for the same crime and with the same evidence.
One cannot be put as a witness in trial for any criminal case against himself/herself. He/she has a right not to be denied of life, liberty, or property before following the right process of law and his/ her private property not to be taken for pubic use without just compensation. These have been developed over the years and the right protection against self- incrimination adopted as the Miranda rule. The Miranda warning is read to a suspect in custody before questioning (Zulawski & Wicklander 2003).
The sixth amendment on the other hand, deals generally with the right to a speedy public trial by the jury. This states that all criminals on trial shall have a right to a speedy and public trial. That jury should be screened for impartiality and should come from the district and state where the crime was committed. In this amendment, it is mandatory for the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation and witnesses brought forward. In this amendment, he has right to an attorney at any critical stage of prosecution including questioning by government officers. This applies to all suspects whether in custody or not. It is also a charge specific meaning that if asserted in regard to a particular charge, it will not be used as excuse to avoid questioning on a different charge.
Interrogation
This is asking or questioning a person which goes beyond the simple “what happened scenario”. It involves use of persuasion or pressure with an aim of getting the suspect to admit or confess to a crime. The Fifth Amendment provides that one has a right to remain silent as anything can be used against them in the court of law and against compelled testimony in criminal prosecution. An interrogator is supposed to get a waiver of these rights prior to custodial interrogation. The question is the limit to which this protection is provided. It does not provide for substantive protection for the right to remain silent to criminal suspects under police custody.
It is also interpreted to mean a remedy in criminal trial because as long as the testimony is not used in trial, coursed testimony can be gotten from such suspects by the law enforcers. This was demonstrated in the case of Chavez v. Martinez. In this case police officers got a confession from the suspect while he was in hospital and badly injured which Martinez alleged was forced out of him. The Supreme Court decided that since the confession was not used in the trial, the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination was not violated.
Miranda rule definition and application is applicable to suspects in interrogation which are custodial in nature, meaning the suspect’s freedom of action has been curtailed in an important way, and where the interrogator is a law enforcement officer or an agent of law enforcement officer. In definition of this, a suspect can not be questioned before being advised on his/her Miranda right to attorney, self- incrimination and right to remain silent otherwise the evidence obtained cannot be used in prosecution. In some states, the definition and application of Miranda rule has been widened to include administering of the rights when the suspect becomes the center of investigation.
In Texas, Miranda warnings should be part of audio or video-taped interrogation failure to which following admissions or confession will be irrespective of whether the rights were read. In Washington, right to counsel is read even if no interrogation is taking place. If this is not administered, utterances made later while in custody might not be considered. In New Jersey, state constitutional rule on Miranda rule is called the ‘Sanchez Rule’. This prohibits police from interrogating suspects without the consent of defense counsel.
In case of California, ‘beachhead or questioning outside Miranda’ is the application of interrogation of suspects in custody. This is where interrogation of suspects is done without reading of their Miranda rights and interrogation continued even after invocation of their rights. After a statement is got, the Miranda rights are read and another one obtained. This is done to impeach the suspect’s testimony if they choose to testify in court the reason being that Supreme Court has ruled in other cases that such statements can be used to find other evidence to challenge the credibility of the suspects.
This is against the rule that in case of suspect invoked the right to counsel investigations ceased, and will only resume if the suspect asks for a waiver or started communication with the police again. This is demonstrated in the case Oregon v. Bradshaw interrogations were opened after the suspect started communication with the police again. The suspect was arrested for drunk driving and the death of a passenger when his truck crashed. He at once invoked his right to counsel and interrogation was stopped. He confessed after he enquired of his fate and the detectives informed him he did not have to speak with them. They ruled that his confession was admissible since he initiated communication with the detectives after ceasing interrogation (Zulawski & Wicklander 2003).
Another definition and application of the Miranda in regard to interrogation is where the officer’s or the public’s safety is at risk. If the suspect’s statements compromise the safety of the above two they may admit in trial. This can be shown in the case New York v. Quarles. This was adopted in court because the situation where concern for the public overrode following of the Miranda rule by the officer. In this case, the suspect was asked about the location of a gun the victims told the police he had. The court said that there was an urgent need for the officers to locate the gun to protect the public and themselves which was more important than the following Miranda. This application allows the patrol officers to respond to public safety needs while maintaining the rights of the suspects.
In interrogating public employees, application of the amendment is different in interviewing the common citizen. This is because of the ethical responsibilities they hold as public servants and what that may imply to their constitutional right against forced self- incrimination. According to stipulations of the standards of conduct for employees, they are required to help internal investigations in to their employment-related conduct.
Failure to do that invites a disciplinary action. This does not mean that they have a less provision of the Fifth Amendment; they have an obligation to be countable in service of the public. In this law the employees have a constitutional right to refuse to give answers to investigators if they believe they will be used to criminally prosecute them. This is where a balance needs to be struck by the courts. In a case Garrity v New Jersey, the police officers accused in a ticket- fixing scheme, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the police officers after it emerged that the testimony used in the case was given under the threat of job loss.
Another area of difference in definition and application of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is the choice by juvenile to waive their right against self incrimination during police interrogations. Cases of such youths confessing to crimes they did not commit have been all over the media. In most of these cases, the suspects are ignorant of the law and just confess to get the officers to leave them.
Custody
Custody means when a suspect has been ‘deprived of his freedom in a significant way’. Police on-scene questioning in fact finding processes is not considered in the Fifth Amendment as is thought the responsibility of citizens to aid law enforcement. In such situations, the compelling environment present in custody questionings is not present police. The definition and application of custody has been inserted differently in different cases. In the case Texas v. Orozco, police officers found him in his room at 4 am and one of them identified himself and told him he was under arrest for a shooting offense.
He was allowed movement in the apartment. He made incriminating statements and produced a gun which he did without a Miranda warning read to him. It was argued that he was not in custody because he was in familiar surroundings and so Miranda warning did not apply.
In Cervantes v. walker defined application of custody interrogation as the language used to summon individual, the physical environment of the interrogation, the depth into which officials presents incriminating evidence and whether there is extra pressure exerted to detain the suspect. In this case court urged that a statement Cervantes made to prison staff members on his possession of narcotics was admissible as evidence as he was not custody. The court argued suppressing the incriminating statement on basis of being in jail would give Cervantes more protection than his counter parts not in jail (Zulawski & Wicklander 2003).
In Illinois v. Perkins, the suspect had recounted in details, enough for police officer to believe was real, and to another inmate the details of a murder he had committed. The police put in an undercover detective in the same cell blocks as Perkins who detailed the murder he had committed. These incriminating admissions were used in court where they were suppressed on the basis of Miranda warnings and custody. The augured that there were no warnings as the suspect was in custody.
The government appealed and obtained a conviction on the basis of those statements. The Supreme Court said that Miranda warnings did not apply in conversations between suspects in prison and undercover officers. This is unlike in Florida where such incriminating statements gotten under deception violate due process and therefore not admissible in court law as they violate the right against self-incrimination.
Offense specificity
The 6th amendment provides that if it is asserted in regard to a particular charge, it will not preclude questioning on a different charge and right to counsel offense specific. This means that a person being questioned for two or more separate offenses should request for an attorney for each of the offenses. A person being investigated for a new offense in relation to a probation violation should also ask for counsel for the new offense from the one on probation offense (Minas 2002).
In Texas v. Cobb, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to an attorney attaches only to charged offenses. It also ruled that constitutional rights of a suspect could not hold back in investigating the person for other offenses in government interest. In specifying offenses the Block burger test should be used which states that if a different fact is required as evidence for offenses specified they then cannot be considered the same offense.
In this case, the suspect was in custody for one offense and confessed to another crime of budgetary to which an attorney was appointed. Cobb was convicted of burglary but denied involvement in the disappearance of the owner’s wife and child and released on bond later. He later confessed to his father of killing them. On his arrest his lawyer on the burglary case was not notified of arrest or subsequent questioning. After conviction with capital murder, he appealed on the group that his lawyer attached on burglary case, an offence which was factuality related, was not informed the case was reversed on augment that his right on 6th amendment was violated.
The 6th amendment was not very specific on definition of charge offenses and therefore the Supreme Court adopted the Block burger test which determines the scope of the offense. These are found in the Block burger v. United States case (Minas, M 2002).
Conclusion
In view of interrogation of suspects in custody, warnings of the Miranda rules do not guarantee that the statements obtained are not compelled. This is because people who are arrested may in a state of shock due to their situations or due to turn of events. In other cases as demonstrated by the highly publicized juvenile cases, the suspects may be ignorant of the law and law enforcers take advantage of them. Also in regard to the use of statements obtained while the suspects in custody, the wording of the Miranda warnings as read to the suspect should be emphasized. Over the years it has been eroded and might mean the wrong thing to the suspect.
Regarding custody as contained in the definition of the Fifth Amendment differs in application especially in lower cases. This is shown in Florida where statements made by suspects in jail to undercover officers are not admissible in court yet in the Supreme Court used such a statement in Cervantes v. walker.
This definition needs to be made clear in order to avoid undue advantage to some suspects over others. While confessions made by suspects in jail or else where without need for Miranda warnings would be helpful in solving crimes care is needed in drawing a line between interests of the government and undermining the rights of individuals. In the same issue it is my opinion that the concept of custody depends on which eye one looks at the situation and the need of the law enforcement officers to prove guilt. This is in view of Texas v. Orozco case where officers appeared in his apartment at four in the morning. A general rule of custody is being in an unfamiliar and hostile environment. In my opinion this was such an environment though the court ruled it was not.
The definition of an offense in the 6th amendment and even in Backburner is not precise enough and even that undermines the right to counsel which gives the police a leeway in exercising it. The lower courts also need to specify its meaning in each case so as to avoid different application to different people which may favor some people in the same situation.
Reference List
Minas, M (2002). Blurring the line: Impact of offense-specific Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall. Web.
Zulawski, D & Wicklander, D (2003). Practical aspects of interview and interrogation: CRC series in practical aspects of criminal and forensic investigations, CRC Press.