Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

The United States Constitution gives a multitude of rights to those considered suspects in a criminal case. Unfortunately, many suspects are unaware of those rights. Prior to the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, which eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court, law enforcement officials who intended to question suspects who were in custody for purposes of using the suspect’s answers at trial were not required to advise the suspect of his or her constitutional rights. In Miranda, however, the United States Supreme Court ruled that answers given by a suspect in police custody in response to police interrogation can only be introduced as evidence at trial if the suspect was informed (1) that he or she has the right to consult an attorney before and during questioning and (2) that he or she has a right against self-incrimination. The suspect must understand and waive these rights in order for statements made by the suspect in custody in response to interrogation to be admissible at trial.

In State v. Dailey, the Tennessee Supreme Court was recently faced with the issue of whether a confession given by a non-Mirandized suspect during police interrogation could be admissible at trial due to the fact that the suspect was later properly Mirandized and advised of his rights. In effect, the Tennessee Supreme Court was asked to decide if a failure to Mirandize could be cured by a proper Miranda warning given after the incriminating statements in question were made by the suspect. The Court properly ruled that no such cure is possible. The purpose of a Miranda warning is that the suspect knows his or her rights before making a potentially damaging admission or statement.