Supreme Court hears criminal defense case involving 13-year-old’s Miranda warning

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a criminal defense case involving whether police were required to give a 13-year-old boy Miranda warnings and whether the young teenager was in custody at the time he was questioned. The justices were divided along political lines as they questioned both sides during the oral arguments. While some justices worried that different standards of Miranda warnings would need to be applied to different age groups, other justices easily thought that a 13-year-old would interpret questioning by a police officer differently than an adult.

The main issue of the case is whether the seventh grade boy with special needs was in custody at the time of questioning and as a result entitled to his Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings protect criminal suspects from giving compelled self-testimony about that which they are accused. Generally, whether a person is “in custody” is determined under a reasonable person standard and whether that person felt free to leave after police questioning begins. Factors in determining custody are the nature of the discussion, length and location.

The 13-year-old boy in the case was believed to be involved in a string of theft cases in Chapel Hill, North Carolina in 2005. The boy was taken out of class and brought to a conference room for questioning where a police investigator, assistant principal, school intern and school resource officer were waiting. The four adults asked whether the boy would like to talk about some recent criminal activity. The boy agreed and the door was closed but not locked.

At first the boy denied any involvement in the string of residential robberies but then gave an admission. Afterward, the police officer told the seventh grader he did not have to answer any more questions but the boy continued to talk giving incriminating information. The four adults said the young boy never asked if he could leave the room or stop answering questions. At no point were the boy’s Miranda warnings given and his admission was later admitted as evidence.

Source: CNN, “Justices to decide if age counts for child suspects being questioned,” Bill Mears, 3/23/11

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Experience: Practicing since 1997
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Can You Be Charged With Drug Possession if the Drugs Aren’t Yours in Minnesota?

You can be charged with drug possession if the drugs aren’t yours in Minnesota. This is one of the most misunderstood areas of criminal law. Many people assume that if they did not own or physically hold the drugs, they cannot be charged. In reality, Minnesota law allows prosecutors to pursue charges based on something called constructive possession.

What Happens if You Contact the Alleged Victim After Charges Are Filed in Minnesota?

If you contact the alleged victim after charges are filed in Minnesota, you may be putting your case, your freedom, and your future at risk. Once criminal charges are filed, courts often impose strict no-contact conditions, either through bail conditions, release orders, or protective orders. Violating those conditions can lead to additional criminal charges, even if your intent was harmless.

Accused of Sharing Intimate Images Without Consent in Minnesota? What to Know

Being accused of sharing intimate images without consent in Minnesota can have consequences that go far beyond the criminal justice system. These cases often involve allegations tied to digital communication, private relationships, and intent, which makes them both legally complex and highly sensitive.