finding that a second statement was given "on the heels of—if not in tandem with" an initial statement and also recognizing Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 (1954), for the proposition that "the confessions were inadmissible because the relation of the confessions was so close that one must say the facts of one controlled the character of the other; they were all parts of one continuous process."
How later courts described this case
- finding that a second statement was given "on the heels of—if not in tandem with" an initial statement and also recognizing Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556 (1954), for the proposition that "the confessions were inadmissible because the relation of the confessions was so close that one must say the facts of one controlled the character of the other; they were all parts of one continuous process."
- holding that police must furnish a suspect who has asserted his right to silence with a fresh Miranda warning before resuming custodial interrogation of the suspect or any resulting confession is inadmissible as a matter of law
- concluding that failure by police to re-administer Miranda warnings before interrogating an accused who has previously invoked the right to remain silent constitutes a failure to scrupulously honor the assertion
- explaining that the police’s failure to reissue Miranda warnings after invocation of right to silence should not automatically preclude the issue of whether defendant waived his right
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*288 HANDLER, J.,
concurring in the result and dissenting in part.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI — 6.
For affirmance — Justice STEIN — 1.