Also known as: Miranda violations · Miranda rights violation · violation of Miranda
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A breach of the Fifth Amendment protections during custodial interrogation that occurs when law enforcement questions a suspect without first administering the required warnings or after the suspect has invoked the right to counsel. The breach renders resulting statements inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief even if the statements are otherwise voluntary.
Mustafa Mahmoud testifies at his fraud trial that he never altered any filing dates on pleadings. The prosecutor confronts him on cross-examination with an earlier admission that he had adjusted dates, which police obtained without Miranda warnings during a custodial interview. The trial court allows the statement solely to challenge credibility because it was voluntary.
Maria Morales is questioned without warnings by city detectives about stolen merchandise while in custody. Immediately afterward, state troopers enter the same room and continue questioning her about an unrelated gambling scheme. The coercive impact of the initial unwarned interrogation carries over, rendering her later statements inadmissible.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The prosecution may use the statement on cross-examination if the statement was voluntary under due process standards and is offered only to challenge credibility rather than as substantive evidence of guilt. The court must first determine that the statement meets the voluntariness requirement before permitting impeachment use.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a second agency continues questioning immediately after an initial unwarned custodial interrogation, the coercive impact of the first violation carries over and renders subsequent statements inadmissible. The protection does not reset simply because different officers are involved.
Supporting sources