establishing Massachusetts rule that a statement made following a violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights is presumptively tainted requiring that the prosecution show “more than the belated administration of Miranda warnings in order to dispel that taint”
How later courts described this case
- establishing Massachusetts rule that a statement made following a violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights is presumptively tainted requiring that the prosecution show “more than the belated administration of Miranda warnings in order to dispel that taint”
- "The failure to administer the Miranda warnings as presently required by Federal law is itself an improper police tactic"
- focus of break-in-stream-of-events analysis “is on external constraints, continuing or new, which may have overborne the defendant’s will”
- declining to follow Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S. Ct. 1285 , 84 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1985), on state law grounds in Massachusetts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Nolan, J.
(dissenting). The rule of Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 314 (1985), should be followed. There, the United States Supreme Court correctly left to the fact finder the only crucial question, whether the suspect made a rational and intelligent choice either to waive or to invoke his rights after Miranda warnings had been given.
I dissent.