Brief Fact Summary. Respondent appealed from a conviction of second-degree murder and attempted robbery when he was Mirandized after confessing, purportedly in violation of his Fifth Amendment Rights.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. W
Held. Reversed. Whether a defendant is “in custody,” and therefore entitled to his Miranda rights, should be determined by objective criterion and not subjective criteria such as age and criminal history.
Dissent. Justice Breyer dissents, noting that case law makes it clear that in determining whether a defendant is “in custody” for Miranda purposes, the court should consider freedom of movement. In the present case, the dissent argues, respondent was not given freedom of movement.
Concurrence. Justice O’Connor concurs, only adding that when a suspect is close to the age of majority, the fact that he is a juvenile should not be given such weight.
Discussion. Under the terms of Miranda, a suspect is “in custody” when their freedom of movement is restricted. When a suspect is “in custody,” they must be read their rights. In this case, the majority holds that an interview is not “in custody,” in terms of Miranda, and that a defendant should not be treated any differently if they are a juvenile because freedom of movement is objective, rather than subjective.