|
|



| |                                                                                           | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | USrpts.GIF�subindex.GIF� cases.GIF����� const.GIFfedpaper.GIFdeclera.GIFcourt.GIFhelp.GIF | 
|
|

| |  |                                                                                            
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 
|
| |  | USSC+ CD-ROM, Version 1996-2Copyright, 1994-1996, InfoSynthesis, Inc.� All rights reserved.
|
|
| | 
|
|

| |  |                                                                                                    
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 
|
| |  | Miranda v. Arizona
No. 759
Argued February 28-March 1, 1966
Decided June 13, 1966 GO>*
384 U.S. 436
|
|
| | 
|
|

| |                                            | 
| | ------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA | 
|
|

| |          | 
| | -------- | 
| |         
|
| | Syllabus | 
| |         
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world.� None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process.� In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials.� All defendants were convicted, and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal. | 
|
|

| |        | 
| | ------ | 
|
| | Held:� | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | 1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.� Pp. GO>444-491. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | (a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination.� Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.� Pp. GO>445-458. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | (b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation[384 U.S. 437]as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations.� Pp. GO>.458-465 | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                       | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | (c) The decision inEscobedo v. Illinois,378 U.S. 478, stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege.� Pp. GO>465-466. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | (d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed:� the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.� Pp. GO>467-473. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | (e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present.� Pp. GO>473-474. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | (f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.� P. GO>475. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                          | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | (g) Where the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege, and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter.� Pp. GO>475-476. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | (h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant.� Pp. GO>476-477. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | 2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions.� Pp. GO>479-491. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                     | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | 3. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination.� Pp. GO>491-499. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                       | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | 98 Ariz. 18, 401� P.2d 721; 15 N.Y.2d 970, 207 N.E.2d 527; 16 N.Y.2d 614, 209 N.E.2d 110; 342 F.2d 684, reversed; 62 Cal.2d 571, 400 P.2d 97, affirmed.[384 U.S. 439] | 
|
|

| |                          | 
| | ------------------------ | 
| |                         
|
| | WARREN, J., lead opinion | 
| |                         
|
|

| |                                                              | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence:� the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime.� More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.[384 U.S. 440] | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | We dealt with certain phases of this problem recently inEscobedo v. Illinois,378 U.S. 478 (1964).� There, as in the four cases before us, law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession.� The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney.� Rather, they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder.� When the defendant denied the accusation and said "I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it," they handcuffed him and took him to an interrogation room.� There, while handcuffed and standing, he was questioned for four hours until he confessed.� During this interrogation, the police denied his request to speak to his attorney, and they prevented his retained attorney, who had come to the police station, from consulting with him.� At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him.� We held that the statements thus made were constitutionally inadmissible. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | This case has been the subject of judicial interpretation and spirited legal debate since it was decided two years ago.� Both state and federal courts, in assessing its implications, have arrived at varying conclusions.{GO>1}� A wealth of scholarly material has been written tracing its ramifications and underpinnings.{GO>2}� Police and prosecutor[384 U.S. 441]have speculated on its range and desirability.{GO>3}� We granted certiorari in these cases, 382 U.S. 924, 925, 937, in order further to explore some facets of the problems thus exposed of applying the privilege against self-incrimination to in-custody interrogation, and to give[384 U.S. 442]concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | We start here, as we did inEscobedo,with the premise that our holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings.� We have undertaken a thorough reexamination of theEscobedodecision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it.� That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution -- that "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and that "the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel" -- rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing.� These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle.� And, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured "for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it,"Cohens v. Virginia,6 Wheat. 264, 387 (1821). | 
|
|

| |                                                                       | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | Over 70 years ago, our predecessors on this Court eloquently stated:� | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The maximnemo tenetur seipsum accusarehad its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which [have] long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688 and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, [were] not uncommon even in England.� While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the[384 U.S. 443]questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition.� The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand.� But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English as well as in American jurisprudence.� So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                         | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | Brown v. Walker,161 U.S. 591, 596-597 (1896).� In stating the obligation of the judiciary to apply these constitutional rights, this Court declared inWeems v. United States,217 U.S. 349, 373 (1910):� | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | . . . our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be.� Under any other rule, a constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power.� Its general principles would have little value, and be converted by precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas.� Rights declared in words might be lost in reality.� And this has been recognized.� The[384 U.S. 444]meaning and vitality of the Constitution have developed against narrow and restrictive construction. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | This was the spirit in which we delineated, in meaningful language, the manner in which the constitutional rights of the individual could be enforced against overzealous police practices. It was necessary in Escobedo, as here, to insure that what was proclaimed in the Constitution had not become but a "form of words,"Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920), in the hands of government officials. And it is in this spirit, consistent with our role as judges, that we adhere to the principles of Escobedo today. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow, but, briefly stated, it is this:� 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.� By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.{GO>4}� As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required.� 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 as evidence 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[384 U.S. 445]process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning.� Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him.� The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. | 
|
|

| |   | 
| | - | 
|
| | I | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.� In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world.� In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process.� In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them, signed statements as well which were admitted at their trials.� They all thus share salient features -- incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | An understanding of the nature and setting of this in-custody interrogation is essential to our decisions today.� The difficulty in depicting what transpires at such interrogations stems from the fact that, in this country, they have largely taken place incommunicado.� From extensive factual studies undertaken in the early 1930's, including the famous Wickersham Report to Congress by a Presidential Commission, it is clear that police violence and the "third degree" flourished at that time.{GO>5}�[384 U.S. 446]In a series of cases decided by this Court long after these studies, the police resorted to physical brutality -- beating, hanging, whipping -- and to sustained and protracted questioning incommunicado in order to extort confessions.{GO>6}� The Commission on Civil Rights in 1961 found much evidence to indicate that "some policemen still resort to physical force to obtain confessions," 1961 Comm'n on Civil Rights Rep. Justice, pt. 5, 17.� The use of physical brutality and violence is not, unfortunately, relegated to the past or to any part of the country.� Only recently in Kings County, New York, the police brutally beat, kicked and placed lighted cigarette butts on the back of a potential witness under interrogation for the purpose of securing a statement incriminating a third party.�People v. Portelli,15 N.Y.2d 235, 205 N.E.2d 857, 257 N.Y.S.2d 931 (1965).{GO>7}[384 U.S. 447] | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The examples given above are undoubtedly the exception now, but they are sufficiently widespread to be the object of concern.� Unless a proper limitation upon custodial interrogation is achieved -- such as these decisions will advance -- there can be no assurance that practices of this nature will be eradicated in the foreseeable future.� The conclusion of the Wickersham Commission Report, made over 30 years ago, is still pertinent:� | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                           | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | To the contention that the third degree is necessary to get the facts, the reporters aptly reply in the language of the present Lord Chancellor of England (Lord Sankey): | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                          | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | It is not admissible to do a great right by doing a little wrong. . . .� It is not sufficient to do justice by obtaining a proper result by irregular or improper means. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | Not only does the use of the third degree involve a flagrant violation of law by the officers of the law, but it involves also the dangers of false confessions, and it tends to make police and prosecutors less zealous in the search for objective evidence.� As the New York prosecutor quoted in the report said, "It is a short-cut, and makes the police lazy and unenterprising."� Or, as another official quoted remarked:� "If you use your fists, you[384 U.S. 448]are not so likely to use your wits."� We agree with the conclusion expressed in the report, that | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                   | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The third degree brutalizes the police, hardens the prisoner against society, and lowers the esteem in which the administration of Justice is held by the public. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                              | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | IV National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement 5 (1931). | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                       | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | Again we stress that the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically, rather than physically, oriented.� As we have stated before, | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | SinceChambers v. Florida,309 U.S. 227, this Court has recognized that coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | Blackburn v. Alabama,361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960).� Interrogation still takes place in privacy.� Privacy results in secrecy, and this, in turn, results in a gap in our knowledge as to what, in fact, goes on in the interrogation rooms.� A valuable source of information about present police practices, however, may be found in various police manuals and texts which document procedures employed with success in the past, and which recommend various other effective tactics.{GO>8}� These�[384 U.S. 449]texts are used by law enforcement agencies themselves as guides.{GO>9}� It should be noted that these texts professedly present the most enlightened and effective means presently used to obtain statements through custodial interrogation.� By considering these texts and other data, it is possible to describe procedures observed and noted around the country. | 
|
|

| |                                               | 
| | --------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The officers are told by the manuals that the | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                               | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | principal psychological factor contributing to a successful interrogation isprivacy-- being alone with the person under interrogation.{GO>10} | 
|
|

| |                                                             | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The efficacy of this tactic has been explained as follows:� | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | If at all practicable, the interrogation should take place in the investigator's office or at least in a room of his own choice.� The subject should be deprived of every psychological advantage.� In his own home, he may be confident, indignant, or recalcitrant.� He is more keenly aware of his rights and[384 U.S. 450]more reluctant to tell of his indiscretions or criminal behavior within the walls of his home.� Moreover his family and other friends are nearby, their presence lending moral support.� In his own office, the investigator possesses all the advantages.� The atmosphere suggests the invincibility of the forces of the law.{GO>11} | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | To highlight the isolation and unfamiliar surroundings, the manuals instruct the police to display an air of confidence in the suspect's guilt and, from outward appearance, to maintain only an interest in confirming certain details.� The guilt of the subject is to be posited as a fact.� The interrogator should direct his comments toward the reasons why the subject committed the act, rather than court failure by asking the subject whether he did it.� Like other men, perhaps the subject has had a bad family life, had an unhappy childhood, had too much to drink, had an unrequited desire for women.� The officers are instructed to minimize the moral seriousness of the offense,{GO>12} to cast blame on the victim or on society.{GO>13}� These tactics are designed to put the subject in a psychological state where his story is but an elaboration of what the police purport to know already -- that he is guilty.� Explanations to the contrary are dismissed and discouraged. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                        | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | The texts thus stress that the major qualities an interrogator should possess are patience and perseverance.�[384 U.S. 451]One writer describes the efficacy of these characteristics in this manner:� | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | In the preceding paragraphs, emphasis has been placed on kindness and stratagems.� The investigator will, however, encounter many situations where the sheer weight of his personality will be the deciding factor.� Where emotional appeals and tricks are employed to no avail, he must rely on an oppressive atmosphere of dogged persistence.� He must interrogate steadily and without relent, leaving the subject no prospect of surcease.� He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth.� He should interrogate for a spell of several hours, pausing only for the subject's necessities in acknowledgment of the need to avoid a charge of duress that can be technically substantiated.� In a serious case, the interrogation may continue for days, with the required intervals for food and sleep, but with no respite from the atmosphere of domination.� It is possible in this way to induce the subject to talk without resorting to duress or coercion.� The method should be used only when the guilt of the subject appears highly probable.{GO>14} | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The manuals suggest that the suspect be offered legal excuses for his actions in order to obtain an initial admission of guilt.� Where there is a suspected revenge killing, for example, the interrogator may say:� | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | Joe, you probably didn't go out looking for this fellow with the purpose of shooting him.� My guess is, however, that you expected something from him, and that's why you carried a gun -- for your own protection.� You knew him for what he was, no good.� Then when you met him, he probably started using foul, abusive language and he gave some indication[384 U.S. 452]that he was about to pull a gun on you, and that's when you had to act to save your own life.� That's about it, isn't it, Joe?{GO>15} | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | Having then obtained the admission of shooting, the interrogator is advised to refer to circumstantial evidence which negates the self-defense explanation.� This should enable him to secure the entire story.� One text notes that, | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | Even if he fails to do so, the inconsistency between the subject's original denial of the shooting and his present admission of at least doing the shooting will serve to deprive him of a self-defense "out" at the time of trial.{GO>16} | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|
| | When the techniques described above prove unavailing, the texts recommend they be alternated with a show of some hostility.� One ploy often used has been termed the "friendly-unfriendly," or the "Mutt and Jeff" act:� | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | . . .� In this technique, two agents are employed.� Mutt, the relentless investigator, who knows the subject is guilty and is not going to waste any time.� He's sent a dozen men away for this crime, and he's going to send the subject away for the full term.� Jeff, on the other hand, is obviously a kindhearted man.� He has a family himself.� He has a brother who was involved in a little scrape like this.� He disapproves of Mutt and his tactics, and will arrange to get him off the case if the subject will cooperate.� He can't hold Mutt off for very long.� The subject would be wise to make a quick decision.� The technique is applied by having both investigators present while Mutt acts out his role.� Jeff may stand by quietly and demur at some of Mutt's tactics.� When Jeff makes his plea for cooperation, Mutt is not present in the room.{GO>17}[384 U.S. 453] | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The interrogators sometimes are instructed to induce a confession out of trickery.� The technique here is quite effective in crimes which require identification or which run in series.� In the identification situation, the interrogator may take a break in his questioning to place the subject among a group of men in a line-up. | 
|
|

| |                                                                                                                                                      | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|
| | The witness or complainant (previously coached, if necessary) studies the line-up and confidently points out the subject as the guilty party.{GO>18} | 
|
|



|
|