Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Miranda v. Arizona requires a state to explicitly advise a suspect of his right to counsel during a custodial interrogation. The case, Florida v. Powell (08-1175) will examine Florida's written "Miranda" warnings, which in part advise, "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions[,]" and "[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights any time you want during this interview." The Florida Supreme Court found these warnings to be deficient, reasoning that advising a suspect of his "right 'to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions' constitutes a narrower and less functional warning than required by Miranda." In a lone dissent, Justice Wells expressed his belief that the majority had stretched the language of Miranda, and "ignore[d] the simple, straight-forward requirements for a warning set out in Miranda."
In its decision, the Miranda Court stated that "the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today." The "system" therefore required that a suspect "held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation..." With these guidelines in place, the Court allowed states to adopt their own methods for informing of a suspect of his Miranda rights. In Florida, the result was Form 310. The defendant in this case, Kevin Dewayne Powell, was read Form 310 verbatim before his interrogation. According to the Florida Supreme Court, after being read his rights, Mr. Powell agreed to talk and made incriminating statements. He was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to ten years. Powell appealed arguing that Form 310 was inconsistent with Miranda, the Second District Court of Florida agreed and reversed his conviction. The Florida Supreme Court then affirmed, and Florida's Attorney General petitioned for certiorari. (The decision of the Florida Supreme Court is available here, and Powell's Brief in opposition is available here.)
It will be interesting to see how this case is decided. According to an April post on SCOTUSblog, this question "has long split the lower courts." Hopefully, a decision by the Supreme Court will clarify the reach of Miranda's language.
In its decision, the Miranda Court stated that "the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today." The "system" therefore required that a suspect "held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation..." With these guidelines in place, the Court allowed states to adopt their own methods for informing of a suspect of his Miranda rights. In Florida, the result was Form 310. The defendant in this case, Kevin Dewayne Powell, was read Form 310 verbatim before his interrogation. According to the Florida Supreme Court, after being read his rights, Mr. Powell agreed to talk and made incriminating statements. He was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to ten years. Powell appealed arguing that Form 310 was inconsistent with Miranda, the Second District Court of Florida agreed and reversed his conviction. The Florida Supreme Court then affirmed, and Florida's Attorney General petitioned for certiorari. (The decision of the Florida Supreme Court is available here, and Powell's Brief in opposition is available here.)
It will be interesting to see how this case is decided. According to an April post on SCOTUSblog, this question "has long split the lower courts." Hopefully, a decision by the Supreme Court will clarify the reach of Miranda's language.
Leave a comment