interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.ö 384 U.S. at 444.
The procedural safeguards required by Miranda, of course, are only applicable during custodial interrogations. But the burden is on the state to establish that Miranda does not apply because the defendant was not in custody, or was free to leave the interrogation at any time. As the Court noted in Miranda, ôthe State is responsible for establishing the isolated circumstances under which the interrogation takes place.ö 384 U.S. at 475. The state has introduced no evidence here that the defendant was not in custody. Therefore, the court must interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant. In this case, such an interpretation must assume that the defendant was in custody during this interrogation and that the defendant should have been informed of his rights under Miranda before any interrogation could begin.
DefendantÆs interrogation by law enforcement in this case clearly violated his constitutional rights. Consequently, any statements from that questioning could not be introduced as evidence in court. In Miranda, the U.S. Supreme Court established certain procedures that law enforcement must respect to ensure their investigations into possible crimes do not violate suspectsÆ Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to incriminate themselves. 384 U.S. 436. In particular, the Court held that before any in-custody interrogation can proceed, law enforcement must warn the suspect that ôhe has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.ö 384 U.S. at 444.
The Court outlined the procedures to be followed after the warnings are given. ôIf the accused indicates that he wishes to remain silent, 'the i...