Court Opinion

ID: 9731834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:59:28.906365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:21.522062
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I believe, considering the age of the boy and the very extensive interrogations by the police at police headquarters before he was given the Miranda warnings, that his confessions, both oral and written, were inadmissible. However, I further believe that the majority has gone beyond even Miranda v. Arizona, 384 *192U. S. 436, and any extension of that case would be unjustified and would be exceptionally unfair to the law-abiding public.
The majority Opinion in Miranda said, as we all re- . member, that the suspect should be warned that his statement “may” be used against him, 384 U. S. at page 444. At two other places in the Opinion, the Court said that any statement “can be used in evidence against him.” The word “may” has been cited with approval regarding warnings given under the F.B.I. procedures, 384 U. S. at 483, 86 S. Ct. at 1632, the warnings mandated by the English Judges’ Rule, 384 U. S. at 486-88, 86 S. Ct. at 1634-35, and the warnings required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 384 U. S. at 489, 86 S. Ct. at 1635. All of these warnings state that a suspect must be informed that a statement “may” be used against him in subsequent proceedings.
The warnings that any statement the accused gave could be used “for or against him” at his trial is, if anything, more favorable to the defendant than to the Commonwealth and more likely to induce him to make a favorable statement instead of a coerced or inculpatory statement.
For all these reasons, I concur in the grant of a new trial but strongly disagree with the majority Opinion in the above mentioned respects.