Question

The Supreme Court has held that before interrogating suspects who are in custody, police must warn them of their right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during questioning (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Unless suspects have received these warnings, the statements they make cannot be used against them at trial. However, the Court has substantially refined this requirement so that it applies only in certain circumstances. Discuss the Court's interpretation of "custodial interrogation" and "coercive environments." What do these terms mean, and what effect has the Court recognized that these situations have on the admissibility of statements? As always, discussion of the cases covered will enhance your answers.

Answer

*A. Varies