NCJ Number
116470
Date Published
1989
Length
26 pages
Annotation
To protect the rights of the accused, the courts have devised many tests for the admissibility of evidence obtained during the interrogation of suspects.
Abstract
The traditional test is that statements be made freely and voluntarily and that confessions be obtained without unnecessary delays in taking the suspect before a judicial officer as required by law. The best known requirements were established in the Miranda case in 1966. The Miranda rule provides that persons in custody and subject to questioning must be warned prior to questioning, that they have the right to remain silent and to the presence of an attorney, that an attorney will be appointed for suspects unable to afford one, and that statements can and will be used in court. The suspect must be provided the opportunity to exercise these rights throughout the questioning. These rights may be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived; and warning is not necessary if the suspect is not in custody or not subjected to questioning while in custody. Even if these requirements are met, a confession may be inadmissible if it is the fruit of an official illegality. The U.S. Supreme Court also has approved the use of extrajudicial confessions to impeach in-court testimony of defendants and has held that warnings need not be given to grand jury witnesses testifying about criminal activities or when the safety of officers or others require that questions be asked immediately. 49 footnotes.