Satisfactory Essays
The defendant, Jared Jones’ self-incriminating statements should be suppressed because his statements were obtained through a violation of his Fifth Amendment right, to not self-incriminate. Officer Watson and Officer Holmes subjected Jared to questioning that satisfied the requirements of a custodial interrogation, in which Jared should have been advised of his constitutional rights. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Similarly, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 22 provides, “that no man ought to be compelled to give evidence against himself in a criminal case." M.D. Const. art. 22.
The United States Supreme Court extended the protections of the Fifth Amendment in Miranda v. Arizona to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966). When an individual is taken into custody and subjected to questioning their Fifth Amendment right is in a position to be jeopardized. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 442. For that reason, Miranda v. Arizona established procedural safeguards, which requires:
[A] defendant to be warned before questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says could be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to him prior to any questioning.

Id. at 479. Unless an effective use of this procedural safeguard is demonstrated the prosecution may not use incriminating statements stemming from a custodial interrogation. Id. at 444.
Precedent has esta...

... middle of paper ...

...ted to constitutes interrogation because both prongs of interrogation were satisfied.
After a defendant has proven custody and interrogation, the two sub-elements required to establish Miranda; the defendant has established the necessary elements of compulsion without requiring any further proof. Smith v. State, 186 Md. App. 498, *517 (2009). Seeing that the Miranda protections should have been applied in this particular case the burden to proofing that the Miranda safeguards were implemented lies on the State. Since Jared was not read his Miranda rights prior to being under a custodial interrogation the State will be unable to prove that the safeguards of Miranda were upheld. Therefore, the self-incriminating statements made by Jared Jones should be suppressed because they were obtained through a violation of this Fifth Amendment right, to not self-incriminate.
Get Access