Constitutional protection of accused persons - Confessions a...

Learning Outcomes

This article examines the constitutional limitations on the admissibility of confessions and incriminating statements in criminal proceedings, including:

• Distinguishing the distinct roles of the Fourteenth Amendment voluntariness doctrine, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (and its Miranda safeguards), and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in regulating police questioning.
• Pinpointing when each protection attaches, the specific conduct that constitutes a violation, and the different exclusionary consequences in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, for impeachment, and at sentencing.
• Analyzing MBE-style fact patterns involving custodial interrogation, public-safety questioning, undercover questioning, and post-charge deliberate elicitation, under both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
• Evaluating whether a suspect has validly invoked or waived the right to remain silent or the right to counsel, including ambiguous requests, re-initiation of questioning, and breaks in custody.
• Applying the exclusionary rule and its exceptions to statements and derivative evidence obtained in violation of Due Process, Miranda, the Sixth Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, including fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree issues.
• Differentiating between voluntary but unwarned statements, involuntary confessions, and properly Mirandized admissions, and predicting which evidence the bar examiners intend to be admissible or suppressible.
• Developing a systematic, step-by-step approach to confession questions so you can quickly identify the governing doctrine, articulate the correct rule, and choose the best answer choice under timed MBE conditions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the constitutional safeguards surrounding confessions and the privilege against self-incrimination, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Analyze the voluntariness of a confession under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
• Determine when the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies inside and outside of custodial interrogation.
• Identify the requirements for Miranda warnings, including the definitions of “custody” and “interrogation.”
• Assess the validity of a waiver of Miranda rights and distinguish express from implied waiver.
• Evaluate the consequences of invoking the right to remain silent versus the right to counsel under Miranda.
• Recognize when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, what it means that the right is “offense-specific,” and how it applies to post-charge interrogations (including undercover questioning).
• Distinguish carefully between the Fifth Amendment (Miranda) and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel.
• Apply the exclusionary rule and its exceptions (impeachment use, fruits, attenuation, independent source, inevitable discovery) to statements obtained in violation of these constitutional protections.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. A suspect is arrested for burglary, taken to the police station, and read their Miranda rights. The suspect states, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer." The police continue questioning, and the suspect confesses. The confession is likely:
   1. Admissible, because the request for counsel was ambiguous.
   2. Admissible, because the suspect initiated further discussion after the ambiguous request.
   3. Inadmissible, because any mention of counsel requires questioning to cease.
   4. Inadmissible, unless the police clarified the suspect's statement before continuing questioning.
2. Which constitutional provision governs the admissibility of a confession obtained through threats of physical violence by the police?
   1. The Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause.
   2. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
   3. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
   4. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
3. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches and applies to police interrogations:
   1. Whenever a suspect is taken into custody.
   2. Only after formal adversarial judicial proceedings have commenced (e.g., indictment).
   3. Whenever a suspect requests an attorney during custodial interrogation.
   4. Only during the trial itself.
4. Police arrest a suspect, do not give Miranda warnings, and immediately ask, “Where is the knife you used?” The suspect replies, “In the trash behind my house.” The knife is recovered and later offered in the prosecution’s case-in-chief. The statement and knife were not the product of threats or physical coercion. On these facts:
   1. Neither the statement nor the knife is admissible.
   2. The statement is inadmissible, but the knife is admissible.
   3. Both the statement and the knife are admissible.
   4. The knife is inadmissible unless the police can show inevitable discovery.
5. After being indicted for robbery, the defendant is released on bail. An undercover officer, posing as a fellow inmate in a holding cell on an unrelated matter, deliberately elicits incriminating statements from the defendant about the charged robbery. No Miranda warnings are given. The statements are:
   1. Admissible; neither Miranda nor the Sixth Amendment applies.
   2. Inadmissible under Miranda, but admissible under the Sixth Amendment.
   3. Inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment, even though Miranda does not apply.
   4. Inadmissible only if the defendant had previously invoked his Miranda right to counsel.

Introduction

Confession questions on the MBE almost always require you to track three distinct constitutional doctrines:

• Fourteenth Amendment Due Process: A confession must be voluntary; police cannot obtain it through coercion that overbears the suspect’s will.
• Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (as implemented through Miranda): The government cannot use statements that are the product of custodial interrogation unless proper warnings are given and validly waived.
• Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: Once formal charges are filed, the government may not deliberately elicit incriminating statements about the charged offense in the absence of counsel or a valid waiver.

Each doctrine has its own trigger, scope, and remedy. On the MBE, you must first identify which doctrine (or doctrines) is implicated before deciding whether the statement comes in and for what purpose (case-in-chief, impeachment, sentencing).

Key Term: Voluntariness (Confessions)
The constitutional standard under the Due Process Clauses requiring that a confession not be obtained through coercion or official compulsion that overbears the suspect's will, assessed by the totality of the circumstances.

Key Term: Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
The constitutional protection that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves, shielding compelled testimonial (not physical) evidence that could be incriminating.

Fourteenth Amendment: Voluntariness

Even if Miranda and the Sixth Amendment are fully complied with, a confession is inadmissible if it is involuntary under the Due Process Clause. Voluntariness is a baseline requirement for all confessions, in both state and federal prosecutions.

Totality of the circumstances

Voluntariness is judged under the totality of the circumstances, including:

• Characteristics of the suspect:
  • Age, education, intelligence, mental illness, intoxication.
  • Physical condition: fatigue, injury, deprivation of food, sleep, or medical care.
• Characteristics of the interrogation:
  • Length and location of questioning; use of isolation; repeated or continuous questioning.
  • Threats of physical harm; display or use of weapons; restraints.
  • Promises of leniency or threats of harsher treatment.
  • Deception and trickery by police.

The key question is whether official coercion overbore the suspect’s will, such that the statement is not the product of a free and rational choice.

Official compulsion requirement

There must be some state action—police, prosecutors, or other government agents—engaging in coercive conduct. A statement is not involuntary for due process purposes merely because:

• The suspect has a mental illness or cognitive impairment.
• The suspect is in extreme guilt or distress and volunteers a confession.
• A private person (e.g., a friend or relative) pressures the suspect without significant government involvement.

Without government coercion, due process is not violated, even if the confession seems unreliable.

Promises, threats, and deception

Not every promise or trick renders a confession involuntary:

• Strong threats or promises tied directly to charging or sentencing (“Confess or your child will be taken away; we’ll seek the maximum sentence if you don’t confess”) are more likely to be coercive.
• Milder deception (“Your co-defendant has already confessed”; false claims about fingerprints or eyewitnesses) is generally allowed and does not, by itself, make a confession involuntary.
• The more vulnerable the suspect and the more extreme the tactics, the more likely a due process violation.

Remedies for involuntary confessions

If a confession is involuntary:

• It is inadmissible for any purpose at trial—neither as substantive evidence nor to impeach the defendant’s testimony.
• Fruits of the involuntary confession—other evidence obtained as a direct result—are also inadmissible, unless an exception (like independent source or inevitable discovery) applies.

Key Term: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (Confessions)
Evidence obtained or derived from a prior constitutional violation in obtaining a confession (such as an involuntary statement), which is generally inadmissible unless an exception (independent source, attenuation, or inevitable discovery) applies.

This is stricter than Miranda: an involuntary confession cannot be used even for impeachment, whereas a voluntary but unwarned Miranda statement can.

Worked Example 1.1

Defendant, age 17 with no prior police experience, is questioned in a locked interrogation room for 12 hours. Police repeatedly threaten to charge his girlfriend unless he confesses, and refuse his requests to call his parents. After 12 hours, he confesses. No physical violence occurs, and Miranda warnings were given and waived at the outset.

Answer:
Under the totality of the circumstances, the confession is involuntary. The long duration, isolation, age of the suspect, repeated threats involving a loved one, and denial of contact with family show coercive police conduct that likely overbore the suspect’s will. The statement and its fruits are inadmissible for any purpose. The fact that Miranda warnings were given does not cure a due process violation.

Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This privilege:

• Applies to natural persons, not corporations or other entities.
• Protects testimonial or communicative evidence—statements that explicitly or implicitly communicate facts.
• Does not protect compelled production of physical evidence (blood, handwriting, voice, fingerprints, standing in a lineup), although other amendments (e.g., Fourth) may apply.
• Can be asserted in any proceeding (criminal, civil, administrative, congressional hearing, grand jury) where answers may reasonably tend to incriminate the witness in a future criminal case.

A person may refuse to answer if the response could furnish a link in the chain of evidence leading to prosecution, even if it is not directly incriminating by itself.

Invoking and waiving the privilege

Outside of custodial interrogation, the privilege must be claimed question by question:

• A criminal defendant at trial may refuse to take the stand at all; the prosecution may not comment on that choice.
• A witness (including a defendant in other proceedings) must assert the privilege explicitly in response to each question that could be incriminating.
• Failure to assert the privilege can constitute a waiver, and the answer may be used later in a criminal case.

Key Term: Use and Derivative Use Immunity
A grant of immunity that prevents the government from using the witness’s compelled testimony or any evidence derived from that testimony against the witness in a criminal case, thereby eliminating the risk of self-incrimination and extinguishing the Fifth Amendment privilege as to those questions.

If the government grants at least use and derivative-use immunity for specific questions, the witness can be compelled to answer; the privilege no longer applies to that subject. Transactional immunity (broader immunity for all offenses related to the transaction) is not constitutionally required but sometimes provided by statute.

Fifth Amendment vs. Miranda

The Fifth Amendment privilege is the substantive right; Miranda provides procedural safeguards to protect that right in the uniquely coercive environment of custodial police interrogation. A core MBE skill is distinguishing:

• A Miranda violation (no warnings or invalid waiver during custodial interrogation) from
• A Fifth Amendment violation (actual compulsion used and the statement later used in a criminal case), and from
• A Fourteenth Amendment voluntariness violation (coercion overbears the will under totality).

Not every Miranda violation is a Fifth Amendment violation; for example, an unwarned but truly voluntary statement that is never used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief may not raise a constitutional self-incrimination problem at all.

Key Term: Custodial Interrogation
Questioning (or its functional equivalent) by known law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom of movement in a significant way, triggering the requirement of Miranda warnings.

Key Term: Miranda Warnings
The set of advisements that must be given before custodial interrogation, including the rights to remain silent, that statements may be used against the suspect in court, to consult with an attorney and have one present during questioning, and to have counsel appointed if the suspect cannot afford one.

Miranda Warnings

When Miranda is required: custody and interrogation

Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is subjected to custodial interrogation by known law enforcement.

Custody

Custody exists when, under the objective circumstances, a reasonable person would feel they are not free to terminate the encounter and leave.

Factors include:

• Formal arrest, or statements that the person is under arrest.
• Use of handcuffs, drawn weapons, or confinement in a locked room.
• Length and tone of questioning.
• Whether the person was told they were free to leave.

Situations that are usually not custody:

• Routine traffic stops and typical Terry stops: temporary detentions for investigation, generally brief and public.
• Voluntary station-house interviews where the suspect is clearly told they are free to leave and actually does leave afterward.
• Questioning of a person already in prison is not automatically custodial; you still apply the reasonable-person test to the specific circumstances of the questioning.

Interrogation

Interrogation includes:

• Express questioning about the crime.
• The functional equivalent of questioning: words or actions that police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (e.g., making accusatory statements designed to provoke a reply).

Not interrogation:

• Voluntary, spontaneous statements by the suspect not prompted by police questioning.
• Routine booking questions (name, address, date of birth, etc.), unless used as a pretext to elicit incriminating information.
• Conversations with undercover officers or informants; Miranda applies only when the suspect knows they are dealing with law enforcement.

Content of warnings and language issues

The warnings need not follow a precise script but must reasonably convey:

• The right to remain silent.
• That anything said can be used against the suspect in court.
• The right to consult with an attorney and to have the attorney present during interrogation.
• The right to appointed counsel if the suspect cannot afford one.

Warnings must be understood. If the suspect does not speak English or has limited comprehension, the police must reasonably ensure the suspect understands the rights (e.g., providing interpretation). If comprehension is lacking, a later “waiver” may not be knowing and intelligent.

Waiver of Miranda rights

A suspect may waive Miranda rights, but the waiver must be:

• Knowing (understands the nature of the rights and the consequences of giving them up).
• Intelligent (made with understanding, not due to mental incompetence).
• Voluntary (not the product of coercion).

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid waiver by a preponderance of the evidence.

An express waiver (“Yes, I’ll talk” or signing a written form) is strong evidence of a valid waiver but not required. An implied waiver can be found where:

• Warnings were properly given and understood, and
• The suspect then speaks voluntarily with police.

Silence alone is not enough to show a waiver, but silence coupled with understanding of the warnings and subsequent answers to questions can suffice.

Invocation of the right to remain silent vs. right to counsel

These two rights operate differently and are tested heavily.

Key Term: Invocation of the Right to Remain Silent
A clear, unambiguous statement by a suspect during custodial interrogation indicating that they do not wish to answer questions, which requires police to cease questioning and respect the decision, though reinitiation under certain conditions is permitted.

Key Term: Invocation of the Right to Counsel (Miranda)
An unambiguous request by a suspect in custody for a lawyer during interrogation, which prohibits further questioning about any crime until counsel is present or the suspect themselves initiates further communication after a sufficient break.

Right to remain silent

• Must be clear and unambiguous (e.g., “I don’t want to talk,” “I’m not answering any more questions”).
• Mere silence, shrugging, or refusal to answer specific questions is not enough to invoke.
• Once invoked, police must scrupulously honor the request:
  • Stop questioning immediately.
  • They may later re-initiate questioning after a significant time break, with fresh Miranda warnings, and typically about a different crime. The earlier invocation does not permanently bar all questioning.

Right to counsel under Miranda

• Must be unambiguous and specific (“I want a lawyer,” “I’m not talking without an attorney”).
• Ambiguous references (“Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,” “Do you think I need a lawyer?”) do not require police to stop; they may continue questioning.
• Once properly invoked:
  • All interrogation about any crime must cease until counsel is present, or
  • The suspect initiates further communication and validly waives the right.
• The protection continues for the duration of custody plus 14 days after a break in custody; after that, police may re-approach the suspect, give fresh warnings, and seek a waiver.

This protection is not offense-specific; it bars questioning about unrelated crimes as well.

Public Safety Exception

Key Term: Public Safety Exception
A narrow exception to Miranda allowing unwarned custodial interrogation when officers reasonably believe that immediate questions are necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public (e.g., locating a weapon), rendering the answers admissible despite the lack of warnings, so long as the statement is voluntary.

Police do not need to give Miranda warnings when questions are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for public safety, such as:

• “Where is the gun?” when officers apprehend an armed suspect in a crowded area.
• “Are there any bombs in the building?” after discovering an explosive device.

The exception is objective: would a reasonable officer in the circumstances perceive an urgent safety threat? It does not permit broad questioning about past crimes beyond the scope of the immediate hazard.

Consequences of Miranda violations

A Miranda violation occurs when there is custodial interrogation without proper warnings and waiver, but the statement is otherwise voluntary.

Consequences:

• The statement is inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
• The statement may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony if:
  • The defendant testifies inconsistently at trial, and
  • The prior unwarned statement was voluntary (no due process violation).

Physical or other nontestimonial fruits of a Miranda violation are generally admissible:

• The Supreme Court treats Miranda as a prophylactic rule; violations do not usually trigger suppression of physical evidence that is the product of voluntary unwarned statements.
• However, deliberate “two-step” stratagems (obtaining unwarned confession, then repeating after warnings) may require suppression of the warned statement itself if used to undermine Miranda.

Worked Example 1.2 Police arrest D for robbery, fail to give Miranda warnings, and ask, “Where is the gun?” D responds, “In my bedroom closet.” Police retrieve the gun. At trial, the prosecution offers both D’s statement and the gun in its case-in-chief. There was no public safety justification.

Answer:
The unwarned statement is inadmissible in the case-in-chief because it is the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The gun, however, is generally admissible. The Miranda violation does not require exclusion of tangible evidence derived from a voluntary statement. If D testifies that he has never owned a gun, the prior unwarned statement could be used to impeach him.

Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

Key Term: Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel (Post-Charge Interrogation Context)
The right of an accused to have counsel present during any deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements by government agents after formal adversarial judicial proceedings have begun for a specific offense.

Attachment and scope

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel:

• Attaches only after the initiation of formal adversarial proceedings:
  • Formal charge, indictment, information, arraignment, or first appearance before a judicial officer where charges are read and counsel is appointed.
• Applies to all critical stages of the prosecution thereafter (e.g., arraignment, plea negotiations, trial, certain pretrial lineups).
• Is offense-specific: it applies only to the charged offense (and offenses considered the same under the Blockburger test), not unrelated crimes.

Key Term: Offense-Specific (Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel)
The concept that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies only to the particular offense(s) for which formal charges have been initiated, allowing police to question a charged defendant about uncharged, unrelated crimes (subject to Miranda) without violating the Sixth Amendment.

Thus, after attachment for Offense A:

• Government agents may not deliberately elicit statements from the defendant about Offense A without counsel present or a valid waiver.
• They may, however, question about Offense B (unrelated, uncharged), so long as they comply with Miranda if the questioning is custodial.

Deliberate elicitation vs. interrogation

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel prohibits deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements:

• Includes express questioning and also the use of undercover agents or informants to draw out statements about the charged offense.
• Unlike Miranda, it applies even when the suspect does not know they are speaking to law enforcement (e.g., talking to a cellmate who is a government agent).

Miranda requires custody and known police interrogation; the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not require custody—only that charges have been filed and the government is deliberately eliciting statements about the charged offense.

Waiver of the Sixth Amendment right

Even after the right attaches, a defendant may waive the Sixth Amendment right to counsel:

• Waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
• If questioning is custodial, proper Miranda warnings can also serve to inform the defendant of the right to counsel; a valid Miranda waiver is usually sufficient to waive the Sixth Amendment right as well.
• The defendant does not have to initiate contact; police may approach and seek a waiver, provided there has been no prior invocation of the Miranda right to counsel that would trigger the Edwards rule.

Statements obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right:

• Are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
• May ordinarily be used to impeach the defendant’s trial testimony if otherwise voluntary.

Worked Example 1.3

Defendant is indicted for burglary, appointed counsel, and arraigned. While in jail awaiting trial, police send an undercover informant into his cell. The informant engages Defendant in conversation and, after steering the discussion to the burglary, elicits detailed admissions. No Miranda warnings are given.

Answer:
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached for the burglary. The government deliberately elicited statements about the charged offense in the absence of counsel and without a waiver. The statements are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief under the Sixth Amendment, even though Miranda does not apply (no known police interrogation and not necessarily custodial in the Miranda sense). The statements could still be used to impeach Defendant if he testifies inconsistently, provided they are voluntary.

Comparing Fifth and Sixth Amendment counsel rights

Key distinctions for the MBE:

• Trigger:
  • Fifth/Miranda: custodial interrogation.
  • Sixth: formal charge plus deliberate elicitation about that offense.
• Scope:
  • Fifth: not offense-specific; invocation bars questioning about any crime while the protection lasts.
  • Sixth: offense-specific; applies only to charged offense(s).
• Invocation:
  • Fifth: must be unambiguously invoked by suspect.
  • Sixth: attaches automatically; no invocation necessary, though it can be waived.
• Agents:
  • Fifth: applies only to known law enforcement questioning.
  • Sixth: applies to undercover agents and informants as well.

Worked Example 1.4

Defendant is indicted for Robbery A, arraigned, and released on bail. Later, while uncharged for any other offense, he is brought to the station and questioned (after Miranda warnings and waiver) about an unrelated, uncharged homicide. He confesses to the homicide.

Answer:
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached for Robbery A but is offense-specific and does not extend to the unrelated homicide. The questioning concerns a different crime, so the Sixth Amendment right is not violated. Because Defendant was in custody and properly Mirandized, and he waived his rights, the confession to the homicide is admissible (assuming it is voluntary).

Exclusionary Rule and Confessions

Key Term: Exclusionary Rule (Confessions)
A judge-made doctrine barring the use of confessions obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights (Due Process, Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination/Miranda, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel) as substantive evidence in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, subject to limited exceptions for impeachment and certain fruits.

The exclusionary rule operates differently depending on which constitutional provision was violated.

Involuntary confessions (Due Process)

• Statement: Excluded for any purpose; cannot be used even to impeach.
• Fruits: Suppressed unless an exception (independent source, attenuation, inevitable discovery) applies.

Miranda violations (Fifth Amendment safeguards)

• Statement:
  • Excluded from case-in-chief.
  • Admissible to impeach the defendant’s testimony if voluntary.
• Fruits:
  • Physical evidence and other nontestimonial fruits are generally admissible.
  • Subsequent warned statements may be admissible if not part of a deliberate “two-step” strategy to circumvent Miranda.

Sixth Amendment right to counsel violations

• Statement:
  • Excluded from case-in-chief.
  • Typically admissible for impeachment if voluntary.
• Fruits:
  • Subject to standard fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree analysis; courts may exclude derivative evidence unless there is an independent source, attenuation, or inevitable discovery.

Courts balance the deterrent value of exclusion against its costs in terms of lost probative evidence. Deliberate, flagrant violations are more likely to lead to broader suppression than isolated, technical errors.

Worked Example 1.5

Police, with probable cause but without a warrant, unlawfully arrest D in his home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. At the station, they give Miranda warnings, D waives, and voluntarily confesses. The illegal arrest was the only reason he was at the station, and no intervening events occurred before the confession.

Answer:
The confession is a fruit of the unlawful arrest. Even though Miranda warnings were given and the statement is voluntary for due process purposes, the confession must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule as the direct product of a Fourth Amendment violation. If there were significant intervening circumstances (e.g., release, appearance before a magistrate) or an independent basis for lawfully bringing D into custody, a court might find attenuation and admit the confession.

Worked Example 1.6

Police obtain a voluntary but unwarned confession from D in custody, then several hours later give Miranda warnings and ask D to repeat the confession, which he does. There is no evidence of coercion.

Answer:
The initial unwarned confession is inadmissible in the case-in-chief under Miranda, but may be used for impeachment if D testifies inconsistently. The later warned confession is generally admissible because the earlier Miranda violation does not taint the later statement when there was no coercion and no deliberate “two-step” strategy. The prosecution must show the later confession was voluntary and followed a valid waiver.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• All confessions must be voluntary under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; official coercion that overbears the suspect’s will renders a confession involuntary.
• Voluntariness is assessed under the totality of the circumstances, considering both suspect characteristics and police tactics.
• The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from being compelled to give testimonial evidence that could be incriminating; it applies in any proceeding where answers may lead to criminal liability.
• Miranda warnings are required only during custodial interrogation by known law enforcement officers.
• “Custody” is determined by an objective “not free to leave” standard; “interrogation” includes words or actions likely to elicit an incriminating response.
• A Miranda waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; it can be express or implied, and the prosecution bears the burden of proof.
• Invocation of the right to remain silent requires a clear and unambiguous request and, if scrupulously honored, allows later questioning under certain conditions.
• Invocation of the Miranda right to counsel must be unambiguous and halts all questioning about any crime until counsel is present or the suspect reinitiates after a break in custody.
• The public safety exception permits limited unwarned questioning when necessary to neutralize an immediate danger.
• A voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief but may be used to impeach; physical fruits are generally admissible.
• The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches after formal charges and is offense-specific; it bars deliberate elicitation of statements about the charged offense without counsel or a valid waiver.
• The Fifth (Miranda) and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel differ in trigger, scope, and offense-specificity; both can be waived knowingly and voluntarily.
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda or the Sixth Amendment are inadmissible in the case-in-chief but usually admissible for impeachment; involuntary statements and their fruits are inadmissible for any purpose.
• The exclusionary rule’s application to confessions depends on whether the violation is of Due Process, Miranda/Fifth Amendment, or the Sixth Amendment, and is bounded by doctrines such as independent source, attenuation, and inevitable discovery.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Voluntariness (Confessions)
• Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
• Custodial Interrogation
• Miranda Warnings
• Invocation of the Right to Remain Silent
• Invocation of the Right to Counsel (Miranda)
• Public Safety Exception
• Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel (Post-Charge Interrogation Context)
• Offense-Specific (Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel)
• Exclusionary Rule (Confessions)
• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (Confessions)
• Use and Derivative Use Immunity