Opinion ID: 2521542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Miranda Protections

Text: In Miranda, the Supreme Court recognized that without adequate safeguards, the process of interrogating suspects who are in custody contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Recently, we explained that the Court in Miranda was tremendously concerned with the deprivation of the suspect's freedom followed by his isolation from friends and family. Matheny, 46 P.3d at 462. As the Court in Miranda noted: An individual swept from familiar surroundings into police custody, surrounded by antagonistic forces, and subjected to the techniques of persuasion ... cannot be otherwise than under compulsion to speak. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 461, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Thus, the Miranda court held that if a person in custody is subject to an interrogation, he must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent; that anything he says may be used against him; that he has the right to the presence of an attorney; and that if he cannot afford one, one will be appointed for him. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 Matheny, 46 P.3d at 462. If a person in custody is not properly apprised of these rights, or fails to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights, the prosecution may not introduce any statement procured from the custodial interrogation in their case in chief. See People v. T.C., 898 P.2d 20, 25 (Colo.1995). B.