Miranda-Goodchild Hearing

I listened to the attorney webinar earlier today where Tom Grieve briefly touched on the Miranda-Goodchild hearing. I’ll admit, I’d never heard of it - so I followed Tom’s advice and I googled:

Miranda–Goodchild hearing is “designed to examine (1) whether an accused in custody received Miranda warnings, understood them, and thereafter waived the right to remain silent and the right to the presence of an attorney; and (2) whether the admissions to police were the voluntary product of rational intellect and free, unconstrained will.” State v. Jiles, 2003 WI 66, 25, 262 Wis.2d 457, 663 N.W.2d 798

Legal nuances have always intrigued me - some are incredibly frustrating and some are brilliant. This one leans toward the brilliant for me.

Sure a police officer can read someone their rights, but do they really understand them? I have to wonder, how many people used this type of hearing to say they didn’t understand their rights after stating they did when they talked with the police.

It’s an interesting concept to me.

Do you really understand your Miranda rights? And do you agree that there should be such a thing as a Miranda-Goodchild hearing available to determine if someone really understood their rights?

3 Likes

I think most folks don’t appreciate the subtleties invoked when being questioned by a police officer, nor do they understand at what point asserting a right to silence is good for their case. A Miranda-Goodchild hearing is, of course, just another evidentiary hearing that tries to unwind that uncertainty.

Clarity and standard language is crucial for the accused to understand what is happening (assuming a reasonable, competent person), but the manipulative techniques interrogators use to elicit results run completely counter to clarity. It’s a game of “Gotcha”, and the investigators and prosecutors will never agree to changing its rules. So a Miranda-Goodchild proceeding is the only hope.

How many? I have no idea, but I’m sure it’s too few. It’s a time sink for overworked public defenders.

3 Likes

As a deputy sheriff, even after becoming an attorney, I always read Miranda rights off of a card. In the few times I was asked at preliminary hearings whether I had Mirandized the suspect, the answer was always yes and it was documented on the citation or report. The next questions was how did you read him his rights. Every time I would pull a card from my right shirt pocket and advise the attorney that I read this card and then read the card out loud. When asked how I know I read the card the response was I always read the card. When asked if I knew the rights without reading the card, the answer would be yes. Followed by then why do you read the card? The answer, because I know if I do it this way every time, I never have to guess when I am being questioned by a criminal defense attorney.
Consistency counts.

5 Likes

I have total respect for law enforcement however, if I’m ever involved in a self defense action my mouth is shut until my lawyer tells me to speak.

4 Likes

That is my advice to every client … always! You have the right to remain silent so shut up. The problem is that while everyone has the right to remain silent, many lack the ability! That’s why stupid people go to jail.

6 Likes

@Dawn. In my opinion it is your duty as an American to have at least a understanding of what your rights are and how they could apply to you in the event of ever being arrested and how to proceed. If I am ever in the arrested it’s just in my best interest to keep my pie hole quiet until my attorney gets there. Police understand that, they probably are not going to get upset, if they know that you know and understand those rights. If they get upset it’s their situation not yours.

3 Likes

Adrenaline doesn’t help the situation either, right @MikeBKY?

3 Likes

Adrenaline does not help nor does the desire to tell your story once it happens.

3 Likes

You are absolutely right about knowing your rights. The only right police are required to notify a person of is those promulgated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) which includes parts of your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination and 6th Amendment right to counsel, and the application to the states through the 14th Amendment. Other than those, people are presumed to know (and understand) their constitutional rights and there is no requirement for the government to advise or explain those rights.

2 Likes

@Dawn

I, absolutely believe that Miranda warnings must

  1. Be given by Law enforcement

  2. That they must be understood

  3. This is not the law, but I think it should be. That once you have invoked your Miranda rights. That Law Enforcement should be forced to discontinue. Thus any incriminating information, gained after the invocation of Miranda, should be considered “fruit of the poisonous tree”.

It is almost a stereotype, that once you invoked Miranda that Law Enforcement can not continue. Unfortunately that is not true. Law Enforcement can continue to interrogate you, and it’s on you to maintain your Miranda rights. While I am pro Law Enforcement, I believe that there must be checks on Law Enforcement’s tools.

3 Likes

Great points, @Zavier_D.

That’s something all responsibly armed Americans need to know.

4 Likes

@MikeBKY

After reading this, I’d love to take part in a mock situation ,laser guns or whatever, something really intense. More so than my CCW training which was a little intense… something where after you are put through a simulated shooting, you are accosted by the cops and put through the whole situation. If it’s intense enough, I bet I’d cave!

Something to ponder.

2 Likes

@MikeBKY. Hi Mike, Well like I said I only have had 1 moving violation ever in my life and I have been driving since 1966. I got a ticket in a dinky TX town for 26mph in a 25mph zone. I asked the cop to give me a break and he said that I’m not going to jail :flushed:, the town was population of 35 people, Duh! Anyway I paid the ticket I think it was $15 + court cost of $10 and he was the Deputy and also was the Judge.

2 Likes

Here is a short primer on Miranda v. Arizona. Everyone knows the basic rights that are required to be informed of: (1) the right to remain silent, (2) that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law, (3) that you have the right to have an attorney present, and (4) that one will be appointed if you cannot afford one. The officer then must make sure that the suspect understands his rights and afford him the opportunity to exercise them before initiating questioning. (This is done simply by asking “do you understood the rights I have just explained to you and are you willing to talk to me.”)
Police are only required to Mirandize someone for “custodial interrogations.” This requires that the person be in custody and that they are being interrogated. Custody requires either a formal arrest or restraint to the degree associated with a formal arrest. This is an objective standard and is very dependent upon time, place and manner. If you are being questioned in your kitchen while swat has your house surrounded, you are probably in custody.
When someone invokes their right to remain silent, an interrogation must stop. If questioning continues and evidence is gathered, it will be suppressed. Dialogue can only begin again if (1) the suspect reopens questioning or there is a 14 day break in custody.
If the person asks for an attorney, questioning can only start again after, (1) counsel is made available, (2) the suspect reopens the dialogue, or (3) after a 14 day break in custody.

2 Likes

I was talking to some prosecutors and police in court today and we were joking about one of the officers in our traffic unit. He would tell you that he will ticket his mother. And everyone has no doubt that he would. We were talking about speed limits in Louisville after a judge found the state speed limit law unconstitutional because it was vague. We started talking about this one road, the Waterson Expressway that has a 55 mph limit. But, if you do any less than 65, cars are on your but like a diaper and are passing you at 75-80 MPH. In other words, you are dangerous if you are driving the speed limit on that road. And everyone agreed.
What do you do?

2 Likes

This is the point I am commenting on. You can invoke Miranda, but if you keep talking Law Enforcement can continue. That is what I meant by it’s on you to invoke Miranda and then stay silent.

1 Like

I would follow the traffic pattern and try to blend in not going any faster than the guy in front and hope the trooper is looking for a flashy car and not yours truly.

2 Likes

I have actually fought this in Court. I commented about it on another thread where I talked about a county in SC.

The road in question was a 6 lane road with a divider so 3 lanes on each side. It was posted as 35 mph, if you were an out of state driver they would ticket you for Speeding if above, and another for Obstructing Traffic if going speed limit in any lane other than far right lane.

1 Like

@MikeBKY. lol “What would you do”? Sounds like the show John Quinones
:laughing::laughing::laughing::nerd_face:

1 Like

That has been my bane. I have usually had a flashy car so it was easy to pick me out of the pack. My one indulgence is 2 seater convertible sports cars.

But in the SC. instance I drove a H2 Hummer (Company paid for car, service, insurance, and gas). Policy was for all management @ multi unit level and above was to have a conspicuously expensive vehicle. Company paid for it all so I didn’t kick about it.

2 Likes