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.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
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

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.