Legal Question in Criminal Law in California
Miranda and the Poisonous Fruit Rule
If someone is briefly interrogated with highly specific and incriminating
questions while in custody (handcuffed and surrounded etc.) without Miranda
warnings....
And then later, taken out of a custody situation, yet with interrogation
continuing for hours in an unfamiliar location and further detailing the
questions they asked while in custody. The 2nd part of the questioning went
on for longer but immediately followed the 1st part that was in custody (lack
of freedom of movement or leaving). During the 2nd part non-custodial
interrogation the suspect was physiologically coerced and asked for a lawyer
multiple times. From the time of the first encounter and handcuffing until
when they left the suspect hours later, no miranda warnings were ever given.
My question is, would the lack of Miranda warnings during the first part of
the interrogation make the 2nd part of the interrogation inadmissible under
the fruit of the poisonous tree rule? And for believability, if at a hearing they
give contrary testimony of the defendant, would the defendant never be
believed over them?
2 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Miranda and the Poisonous Fruit Rule
Sure, it sounds like you have grounds for suppression motion. Whether defendant's testimony is credible depends on the truth and how well he tells it. Regardless of what anyone says on this forum, it is not going to do you much good simply to know what they think. You need counsel to conduct the investigation, make the proper suppression motions and then put on the hearing effectively. If you want to discuss hiring counsel, contact me.
Re: Miranda and the Poisonous Fruit Rule
Without knowing more about the facts I'm not sure what to make of your claim that the suspect was no longer in custody for the second part of the interrogation. The fact that someone is no longer handcuffed or in the police station does not mean he is out of custody for Miranda purposes. Whenther someone is in custody at a given moment is a mixed question of law and fact, but you have provided only your own conclusion and no facts with which to decide whether you are correct or not.
Leaving that issue aside, Miranda applies only to interrogation of suspects while they are in custody, and no longer applies when they have been released. If the suspect truly is no longer in custody, the police can ignore his requests for an attorney without violating Miranda, though such conduct may be illegal for other reasons.
Related Questions & Answers
-
Blood testing by police When police take you in to the hospital for blood testing,... Asked 10/10/04, 8:55 am in United States California Criminal Law
-
Exspongement of a misdemeanor after diversion program what are the chances of... Asked 10/10/04, 12:55 am in United States California Criminal Law
-
Hidden cameras i was recently informed that my ''boyfriend'' and some neighbor... Asked 10/09/04, 6:21 pm in United States California Criminal Law
-
Minor in Possession & 602PC HI.. My 13 year old son just received a 602PC in... Asked 10/08/04, 12:18 am in United States California Criminal Law