Charleston v. Gilmore: Understanding the Admissibility of Incriminating Statements Made before and after the Reading of Miranda Rights
![handle is hein.journals/amjtrad42 and id is 465 raw text is:
Charleston v. Gilmore: Understanding
the Admissibility of Incriminating
Statements Made Before and After the
Reading of Miranda Rights
Introduction
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you
cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.'
These words-a recitation ofthe Miranda rights2-have become a part
of the American culture, often referenced in movies and television
shows.3 Even so, they have significant constitutional importance that
guarantees a criminal suspect the right to remain silent ... and ... [the]
right to the presence of an attorney.4 Before Miranda, the burden to
understand and assert these rights fell upon the suspect.' Miranda
changed this and placed the burden of informing a suspect of his
constitutional rights on the interrogating officer.6 Following Miranda,
a simple quotation of these rights created the presumption that the
statement made by a suspect during a custodial interrogation was
admissible in a court of law.' Over the next several decades, exceptions
developed to the hardline stance that statements made in the absence of
'See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,444 (1966) ([T]he 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.).
2 See id. (stating the rights that must be expressed to a person in police custody
before questioning can begin).
3See, e.g., Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Honor (Wolf Films & Studios USA
Television Oct. 27, 2000).
4 Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444.
' Steve Mount, The Miranda Warning, U.S. CONsTrruTION (Jan. 8, 2010), https://
www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html (last visited Mar. 7, 2019, 6:09 p.m.).
6 id.
7 Stewart J. Weiss, Missouri v. Seibert: Two-Stepping Towards the Apocalypse, 95
J. CluM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 945, 947 (2005).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/amjtrad42&div=25&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most