Miranda v. Arizona in Utah State Courts
In this case, law enforcement questioned the defendant about his involvement in the armed robbery of a store. During this questioning, law enforcement asked whether the defendant wished to speak with an attorney. The defendant responded ôUm, sure. That would be groovy.ö Law enforcement, however, did not make an attorney available to the defendant. Rather, they continued to question him and the defendant subsequently made incriminating statements on which law enforcement relied to convict him of armed robbery.
Whether the trial court erred when it allowed into evidence incriminating statements made by defendant after he indicated to law enforcement that he wished to speak with an attorney during their interrogation.
Law enforcement violated the defendantÆs constitutional protections by continuing to question the defendant after he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel.
Law enforcement violated the defendantÆs constitutional protections by continuing to question the defendant after he equivocally invoked his right to counsel.
The defendant did not waive his constitutional protections.
The facts in this case do not establish that the defendant was ever informed of his rights under Miranda before his interrogation began. If this questioning began without the defendant first being informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), then no statement the defendant made during the question should have been introduced into evidence. Specifically, in Miranda, the Court held that statements made by a defendant in response to interrogation while he is in custody cannot be admitted as evidence in court unless law enforcement first advises the defendant of his rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. 384 U.S. at 479. As the Supreme Court stated in Miranda, ôthe prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial ...