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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT