absence of Miranda warning in Michigan

2013The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the respondent’s failure to claim the privilege when he was questioned was not fatal to his claim “[b]ecause of the compulsory nature of the meeting, because [the respondent] was under court order to respond truthfully to his agent’s questions, and because the agent had substantial reason to believe that [the respondent’s] answers were likely to be incriminating.” [Murphy, 465 US at 425 , quoting State v Murphy, 324 NW2d 340, 344 (Minn, 1982) (first alteration in original).] The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that Miranda warnin

2013The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the respondent’s failure to claim the privilege when he was questioned was not fatal to his claim “[bjecause of the compulsory nature of the meeting, because [the respondent] was under court order to respond truthfully to his agent’s questions, and because the agent had substantial reason to believe that [the respondent’s] answers were likely to be incriminating.” [Murphy, 465 US at 425 , quoting State v Murphy, 324 NW2d 340, 344 (Minn, 1982) (first alteration in original).] The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that Miranda warnin

1988Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).

1988Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).

1988See Parsonson v Construction Equipment Co, 18 Mich App 87, 90 ; 170 NW2d 479 (1969), aff'd 386 Mich 61 ; 191 NW2d 465 (1971). ii Defendant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to suppress several incriminating statements defendant made on four occasions to police officers in the absence of Miranda warnings.

1988See Parsonson v Construction Equipment Co, 18 Mich App 87, 90 ; 170 NW2d 479 (1969), aff'd 386 Mich 61 ; 191 NW2d 465 (1971). ii Defendant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to suppress several incriminating statements defendant made on four occasions to police officers in the absence of Miranda warnings.

1979Frazier, supra. Michigan courts recognized early that if a defendant’s incriminating statements made at the time of arrest are inadmissible (in the absence of Miranda warnings), his silence should be protected as well. 3 In People v Bobo, 390 Mich 355 ; 212 NW2d 190 (1973), a prosecutor examined the defendant at trial as to why he had not reported possibly exculpatory evidence to police at the time of his arrest. 4 *739 The Supreme Court held that such examination is an impermissible infringement upon a defendant’s right to remain silent at the time of arrest.

1979Frazier, supra. Michigan courts recognized early that if a defendant’s incriminating statements made at the time of arrest are inadmissible (in the absence of Miranda warnings), his silence should be protected as well. 3 In People v Bobo, 390 Mich 355 ; 212 NW2d 190 (1973), a prosecutor examined the defendant at trial as to why he had not reported possibly exculpatory evidence to police at the time of his arrest. 4 *739 The Supreme Court held that such examination is an impermissible infringement upon a defendant’s right to remain silent at the time of arrest.

1979Frazier, supra. Michigan courts recognized early that if a defendant’s incriminating statements made at the time of arrest are inadmissible (in the absence of Miranda warnings), his silence should be protected as well. 3 In People v Bobo, 390 Mich 355 ; 212 NW2d 190 (1973), a prosecutor examined the defendant at trial as to why he had not reported possibly exculpatory evidence to police at the time of his arrest. 4 *739 The Supreme Court held that such examination is an impermissible infringement upon a defendant’s right to remain silent at the time of arrest.

1977Upon remand, the lower court is directed to make a determination regarding the issue. 5 In Beckwith v United States, 425 US 341 ; 96 S Ct 1612 ; 48 L Ed 2d 1 (1976), the Supreme Court rejected a claim that statements made by one during the course of an interview with agents of the IRS, investigating the possibility of criminal tax fraud, were inadmissible in the absence of Miranda warnings once the investigation had focused on the accused.

1977Upon remand, the lower court is directed to make a determination regarding the issue. 5 In Beckwith v United States, 425 US 341 ; 96 S Ct 1612 ; 48 L Ed 2d 1 (1976), the Supreme Court rejected a claim that statements made by one during the course of an interview with agents of the IRS, investigating the possibility of criminal tax fraud, were inadmissible in the absence of Miranda warnings once the investigation had focused on the accused.