Legally Speaking by Cassandra Savoy, Esq. OP/ED
Let’s start at the beginning. The Miranda warnings have been required at the time of arrest since 1966 after a U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a defendant named Miranda. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution gives every citizen the right not to say something that will incriminate you, not to say something that is against your liberty interests.
The Miranda Court put them this way:
· You have the right to remain silent.
· If you give up that right, anything you say can be used against you at the time of trial.
· You have the right to have an attorney represent you.
· If you cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint a lawyer to represent you.
For the warning to actually protect you, you have to exercise your rights. If you give them up in accordance with the constitutions of both the United States, and New Jersey, you must do so knowing that you are giving them up and you must do so voluntarily . . . although for the life of me, I cannot imagine why anyone would give up a right voluntarily when his liberty is at stake. In New Jersey, at least in theory, in many ways, Miranda is relatively alive and well. Follow what happened to A.G.D. in New Jersey in 1993.
A.G.D. was babysitting his children and another minor child, K.R., the daughter of a family friend. According to K.R., who was spending the night as she had done in the past, K.R. awoke to find A.G.D. engaging in oral sex with her. She later informed her mother who in turn contacted the police. A detective from the county prosecutor’s office conducted a videotaped interview of K.R. Using language of a minor child, the alleged victim essentially described how A.G.D. had conducted cunnilingus on her. Based on that interview, the detective obtained a warrant for A.G.D.’s arrest.
A few days later, the detective and a fellow law enforcement officer went to A.G.D.’s home to question him. One of the detectives explained to A.G.D. that they sought to interview him about allegations of sexual abuse that had been asserted against him, but the detective did not specify the charges. The detective neither executed the arrest warrant nor informed A.G.D. that an arrent warrant had been issued. The detective’s stated reason for the omission was that he “wanted to hear what A.G.D. had to say.”
A.G.D. accompanied the detectives to the prosecutor’s office. According to the detectives, A.G.D. was escorted into an interview room and advised of his Miranda rights. A.G.D. purportedly waived those rights and signed a standard Miranda waiver form. After being informed of the alleged crimes and identity of the victim, A.G.D. initially denied all charges. Once the detectives advised A.G.D. of K.R.’s videotaped statement, A.G.D. began to make admissions. A.G.D. gave a written statement. A.D.G. was indicted and convicted.
On Appeal, A.G.D. disputed the voluntariness of his statements by claiming that he made up the story about sexually assaulting K.R. to satisfy the police. According to A.G.D.’s version, the detectives questioned him for an hour and a half before presenting him with the Miranda waiver form. In addition, A.G.D. asked several times whether his wife or his attorney had arrived at the prosecutor’s office. A.G.D. claims that, in response, the detectives repeatedly informed him that he did not need a lawyer. He also claims that, after he did sign the Miranda waiver form, his interrogators began to curse and they threatened to put him in jail and to take away his children if he did not tell them what they wanted to hear.
The Appellate Division sent the case back to the Superior Court to conduct a hearing on whether A.G.D. had been afforded the protections of Miranda. Needless-to-say, the Superior Court judge did not believe A.G.D. and the case ended up in 2003 at the New Jersey Supreme Court.
To the benefit of A.G.D. (and the rest of us), the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed that the “confession” was not voluntary, but not for the reasons advanced by A.G.D. The Court held that prosecutors and their represent and therefore, violative of the Constitution, but because the government failed to inform A.G.D. that a criminal complaint or arrest warrant has been filed or issued against him BEFORE questioning making invalid A.G.D.’s waiver of his right against self-incrimination. In other words, to be knowing and voluntary, the police have to tell you before they question you what the exact charges against you if a criminal complaint or arrest warrant has issued.
Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court has expanded the right to be informed of the specific charges filed against a person before he can knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights, also applies to a person who has been arrested and questioned prior to any charges being filed when the arrest was based on information developed through an earlier police investigation.
This may all seem complicated and suitable only for nerds. So let me speak plainly. The only benefit of Miranda is that you actually exercise your rights. If arrested: Shut up! You really are not smarter than the police. They get expert training on the law and the rules that you have barely heard of. They know how to make you talk: isolate you by leaving you alone in a room with your thoughts for a long time; make the room too hot or too cold; and let’s not forget the ole good cop/bad cop routine, to just name a few. The best way to get benefit of Miranda and maintain your liberty (a.k.a. stay out of jail) is to just Shut up and remember the magic words: “I WANT A LAWYER” (not my mother, not my girlfriend). If arrested, the procedure is: I want a lawyer and then SILENCE!!!!
