Criminal Procedure MBE Tip of the Day

Answer to the Criminal Procedure MBE Question

Subject: Criminal Procedure

Legal Issue: 5^th Amendment and Miranda Rights

Legal Rule and Analysis: The Supreme Court has held that officers are required to read a suspect his Miranda rights before the suspect is subject to a custodial interrogation.  If the Miranda rights are not given, any incriminating statements made during the interrogation will not be admissible.  However, physical evidence obtained as a result of an inadmissible confession will be admissible, so long as the confession is voluntary. Thus, the weapon will be admitted into evidence.

Further, as long as the police did not engage in any nefarious conduct, a subsequent administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement.  A suspect is not precluded from waiving his Miranda rights knowingly and intelligently if they have previously given an unwarned confession.  If Miranda rights are read to the suspect after an unwarned confession and a subsequent confession is completely knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, it will be admitted.  The “taint” of an earlier unwarned confession is not transferred to a subsequent voluntary confession made after properly waiving Miranda rights.  The totality of the circumstances should be examined.

In this case, it is clear that the man’s first confession was obtained in violation of Miranda as he was not read his rights prior to being subject to a custodial interrogation.  This confession will thus be suppressed.  The man admitted that he made this confession voluntarily, and there is no evidence of improper conduct by the police.  The officer accidentally made a mistake (as opposed to designing a scheme to elicit a confession without warnings, then administering warnings and forcing the man to confess again).  As a result of this voluntary confession, the weapon will not be considered fruit of a constitutional violation, as the man’s constitutional rights were not violated.

The second confession will also be admitted as it was made voluntarily after a knowing and intelligent waiver of the man’s Miranda rights.  As stated, there was no scheme crafted by the police to elicit a double confession out of the man.  The man admitted his confession was voluntary, and there are no indications of any coercion or that his waiver was anything but knowing and intelligent.  Therefore, the man’s second confession should be admitted.

Conclusion: The first confession should be suppressed, but the weapon and the second confession should be admitted.

Look at the answer choices provided. Choose an answer choice that matches your conclusion. Review the other answer choices provided. 

The answer choice (C) is therefore correct. (A) is incorrect because it does not recognize that the weapon is not fruit of the poisonous tree and that the taint of the first confession does not apply to the second. (B) is incorrect because it does not recognize that the weapon is not fruit of the poisonous tree.  (D) is incorrect because it does not recognize that the taint of the first confession does not apply to the second.

Note that the man admitted the confessions were voluntary so the 14th Amendment due process clause would not preclude admission of the confessions or the weapon.

MBE Tip: Understand the true scope of constitutional rights!  This will help you identify exactly which pieces of evidence should be suppressed as tainted fruit.