The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled on an interesting issue regarding the Fifth Amendment and the privilege against self-incrimination. In State v. Nyhammer, the Court held that neither the 5th Amendment nor the statelaw privilege against self-incrimination compels the suppression of a statement by a person, who has voluntarily chosen to speak to police after being advised of his Miranda rights, solely because the police did not inform him that he was a suspect.
When lawyers talk about Miranda rights or the Miranda warnings, we are talking about the following: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...." I am sure you are all familiar with these warnings as we see them everyday on television and in movies. The Miranda protections come from the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment reads:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
In the famous case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Court held that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning.”
As a result, we are all entitled to Miranda protections when in a custodial interrogation scenario. The question then becomes whether the individual is in custody for the purposes of Miranda. In the recent NJ Supreme Court case above, the defendant was asked to come down to the station because his uncle had been accused of sexual abuse. In reality, the defendant had been accused of sexual abuse and he was the prime suspect in the case. The police read the defendant his Miranda rights prior to questioning him. When the police confronted the defendant with the allegations, the defendant confessed. On appeal, defense counsel argued that the police had an obligation to re-administer the Miranda warnings before questioning him once the defendant learned that he was a suspect. The Court rejected this argument and held that the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights when he agreed to be interviewed following the initial Miranda warnings.
A word to the wise: Always invoke your right to remain silent and request an attorney when you are being interviewed by the police. As this case illustrates, even if they don't tell you that you are a suspect in the case, they will be able to use any statements you make against you after advising you of your Miranda rights.
