Innis 446 US Court Case Study
Rhode Island v. Innis 446 U.S. 291 (1980)
FACTS:
Substantive Facts: Respondent was arrested on the night of January 12, 1975 for the robbery of Providence cab driver John Mulvaney, which lead to his murder. Mulvaney was shot in the head with a sawed-off shotgun, however no weapon was found present on the respondent at the time of his arrest. Upon the respondents’ arrest, respondent was informed of his Miranda rights by three police officers, to which he explained he understood those rights and wanted to speak with a lawyer. Officers then placed the respondent in the rear of a squad car containing the three aforementioned officers, one of which was seated in the rear with the defendant. Once en route to the police station, the officers began …show more content…
As further reiterated, “Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not bar voluntary statements by definition. The Fifth Amendment explicitly states “No person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The issue here was whether or not the conversation was in fact an interrogation based on the subdivision called the “functional equivalent” of questioning, described as ‘any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect’. The court found that the conversation did not fall within the Miranda meaning of “interrogation” because it was concluded as being nothing more than a dialogue between the two officers, which invited no response from the respondent, and was clearly not a questioning initiated by officers. Furthermore, the conversation also was found not to fall under the description of “functional equivalent” because the few ‘offhand’ remarks that the officers made to one another in no way subjected the respondent to elicit a statement of admission, nor were the officers’ actions subjecting the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was found to have given a confession in a voluntary manner and that his Fifth Amendment rights were not deprived because he was not compelled or forced in any way to
FACTS:
Substantive Facts: Respondent was arrested on the night of January 12, 1975 for the robbery of Providence cab driver John Mulvaney, which lead to his murder. Mulvaney was shot in the head with a sawed-off shotgun, however no weapon was found present on the respondent at the time of his arrest. Upon the respondents’ arrest, respondent was informed of his Miranda rights by three police officers, to which he explained he understood those rights and wanted to speak with a lawyer. Officers then placed the respondent in the rear of a squad car containing the three aforementioned officers, one of which was seated in the rear with the defendant. Once en route to the police station, the officers began …show more content…
As further reiterated, “Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not bar voluntary statements by definition. The Fifth Amendment explicitly states “No person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The issue here was whether or not the conversation was in fact an interrogation based on the subdivision called the “functional equivalent” of questioning, described as ‘any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect’. The court found that the conversation did not fall within the Miranda meaning of “interrogation” because it was concluded as being nothing more than a dialogue between the two officers, which invited no response from the respondent, and was clearly not a questioning initiated by officers. Furthermore, the conversation also was found not to fall under the description of “functional equivalent” because the few ‘offhand’ remarks that the officers made to one another in no way subjected the respondent to elicit a statement of admission, nor were the officers’ actions subjecting the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was found to have given a confession in a voluntary manner and that his Fifth Amendment rights were not deprived because he was not compelled or forced in any way to