Opinion ID: 1793000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Identity of Other Victims

Text: In United States v. Patane , [8] the Court held that the failure to give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the fruits of a defendant's unwarned statement: In this case we must decide whether a failure to give a suspect the warnings prescribed by [ Miranda ], requires suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements. The Court has previously addressed this question but has not reached a definitive conclusion.... Because the Miranda rule protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which, in turn, is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements, we answer the question presented in the negative. [9] The Self -Incrimination Clause does exactly what its name implies: It creates a right against self-incrimination. It does not create a right against incrimination by others. Thus, the Self-Incrimination Clause is not implicated by the introduction at trial of the testimony of others, e.g., the victim. The Appellant can assert his Fifth Amendment rights only to bar the introduction of statements that he has made, not statements made by others. Thus, even if we assume that Appellant's statements should be suppressed, the fruits of his otherwise voluntary statements, i.e., the identity of his other victims, are not subject to suppression, and the newly identified victims may testify against him.