ILNews

Miranda warning given during police interview makes confession admissible

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant’s confession made during a police interrogation is admissible because while officers questioned the defendant in what they called a “pre-interview,” they Mirandized him before he confessed.

The defendant, Robert Hicks, appealed his conviction of murder and 55-year sentence for the death of girlfriend Anna Jochum. He claimed the admission he made of striking and then stabbing Jochum should have been suppressed, in part, because the police engaged in a “question-first, Mirandize-later” approach to his interrogation.

Hicks pointed to Missouri V. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) where the Supreme Court of the United States threw out statements police obtained by using an interrogation technique where they  purposefully withheld Miranda warnings until after the suspect had confessed. Then they Mirandized the defendant and got a second, similar admission of guilt.

Although Indiana courts have applied Seibert to situations in which a Miranda advisement was given after a defendant confessed, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that is not what happened to Hicks.

He agreed to accompany officers to the police station and answer their questions. When he admitted to having been in an argument with Jochum, officers read Hicks his Miranda rights. He then provided more details about the argument and his actions. In an interview the next day, before which he was again Mirandized, he talked more.

The Court of Appeals held Siebert did not apply because Hicks confessed after being read his Miranda rights. It affirmed his conviction and sentence in Robert E. Hicks v. State of Indiana, 82A01-1306-CR-256.

 
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. That comment on this e-site, which reports on every building, courtroom or even insignificant social movement by beltway sycophants as being named to honor the yet-quite-alive former chief judge, is truly laughable!

  2. Is this a social parallel to the Mosby prosecutions in Baltimore? Progressive ideology ever seeks Pilgrims to burn at the stake. (I should know.)

  3. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

  4. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  5. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

ADVERTISEMENT