The State bears the burden of proof in a motion to suppress a statement allegedly obtained in violation of the Miranda doctrine.
State v Harvey 121 N.J. 407, 417, 419 (1990) (the defendant's statement that he would tell the police about the murder, but first wanted to speak with his father, was held to be an invocation of the privilege), cert.
Galloway 133 N.J. at 654; State v Kelly 61 N.J. In contrast, the federal burden of proof for voluntariness of a confession is by a preponderance of the evidence.
On appeal, Miranda’s lawyers pointed out that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so.
By stating the rights and the privileges of the individual who is arrested, the individual will know his or her rights, privileges, and obligations.
As shown in the Miranda case, a person may get away with no punishment, even if the accused confesses to the crime, if the police do not read that person his five rights and privileges that are supposed to ensure the due process of the law stated in Amendment number five in the American constitution.
Feeds |
Contact