Yarborough V. Alvarado Summary

This week I will be talking about a juvenile case that had allegedly violated a young man Fifth Amendment Rights, meaning that he was read his Miranda Rights after confessing to the crimes that he was accused of. The case I will be speaking about is the “Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 124 S. Ct. 2140, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938 (2004).” When it comes to knowing who is actually defined as a juvenile and an adult is a very thin line and the law for a juvenile is normally defined as an individual who is not of age to be held accountable for their unlawful acts until they reach the age of 18 years old. Now for the case of Micheal Alvarado, age 17 years old, who was accused and convicted of second-degree murder and attempted robbery in 2004. Mr. Alvarado

When he was being questioned Micheal was not under arrest and was not read his Miranda Rights but during the interview with investigators he admitted to his contribution. Based on his confession and statements he was arrested along with found guilty of second-degree murder and attempted robbery. But the “Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction and found that since the offender was an adolescent and felt daunted while he was “in custody” in the terms of Miranda Rights and should have been read his rights” (Yarborough v. Alvarado, 2004, p. 1, 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence). The main issue of this case is whether or not the police officers should have thought about Micheal’s age and the history of the suspect when deciding whether or not he was “in custody” and for that reason entitled to his Miranda warnings under the Fifth

Alvarado, in which the Court had declined to overturn a state court's conclusion that a minor was not in custody for Miranda purposes during his police interview” (Wikipedia, 2015). According to the case brief website, “Justice Breyer notes that case law makes it clear that in determining whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes, the court should consider freedom of movement. In the present case, the dissent argues, respondent was not given freedom of movement; adding that when a suspect is close to the age of majority, the fact that he is a juvenile should not be given such weight” (Yarborough v. Alvarado, 2004). Basically, the case was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court on grounds that the Miranda, a suspect who is “in custody” when their freedom of movement is restricted. But since Alvarado was never read his rights before he confessed to the involvement of murder and robbery he should not be treated any differently than any juvenile because of his age being so close to the adult court system age limit. Through Alvarado’s murder trial in a state court, the motions to suppress his statements that he had given was denied on the grounds that Alvarado was not actually in police custody at the time of questioning and thus the police officers did not feel that they had to read him his Miranda