Also known as: knowing and intelligent · knowingly, intelligently · knowing and voluntary waiver
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard for valid waiver of constitutional rights requiring that the defendant understand the nature of the rights and the consequences of relinquishing them. The court must ensure the record shows the defendant knows what he is doing and makes the choice with eyes open.
Kelsey Kirk faces trial on fraud charges and tells the judge she wants to represent herself. The court questions her about her understanding of the charges, the role of counsel, and the risks of proceeding alone. After the inquiry the judge finds her waiver knowing and intelligent and allows her to proceed pro se.
Kelvin Kimura is indicted and questioned without counsel present. He signs a form containing waiver language and makes statements. At trial the prosecution offers the statements only to impeach his testimony. The court admits them after finding the statements voluntary and the waiver knowing and intelligent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Kamala Krishnan is arrested and given full Miranda warnings. She states she understands her rights and answers questions without requesting counsel. The court later finds her waiver knowing and intelligent because the warnings were adequate and she chose to speak with eyes open.
Kai Kwon invokes his right to counsel during initial questioning. Agents later reinitiate contact without counsel present and obtain a confession. The court suppresses the statement because the reinitiation violated the knowing-and-intelligent waiver requirement that protects the prior invocation.
Keisha Kincaid receives a copy of her multi-count indictment weeks before arraignment. At the hearing the prosecutor describes one representative count and states the others are identical. After consulting counsel she pleads guilty. The court finds the plea knowing and intelligent because the record shows she understood the charges and consequences.
Kevin Kane requests to represent himself at trial but shows confusion about penalties and jury procedures. The court holds a hearing and finds he lacks a rational understanding of the proceedings. It denies the request because the waiver is not knowing and intelligent.
The record must establish that the defendant was made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of forgoing the right and that he knows what he is doing when he makes the choice.
Supporting sources
Yes. Receipt of Miranda warnings followed by a decision to speak normally constitutes a valid waiver when the defendant understands the rights and chooses to answer questions.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the statements are voluntary and the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver they may be used to impeach the defendant's testimony even though they are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
Supporting sources
The government must prove the waiver by a preponderance of the evidence based on the particular facts and circumstances including the defendant's background experience and conduct.
Supporting sources
…either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual…