Court Expands 'Miranda' to Interrogees Who Have Not Been Formally Charged
COURT WATCH: In this case, neither had a complaint been filed nor had an arrest warrant been issued when the defendant was given his Miranda warnings.
June 21, 2021 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
Criminal Law
On Feb. 4, 2021, in a case of first impression, the court held that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), applies to "an interrogee who was arrested and questioned prior to any charges being filed, where the arrest was based upon information developed through an earlier police investigation." State v. Sims, 466 N.J. Super. 346 (App. Div. 2021). For this reason, the court reversed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress defendant's statement, as well as his conviction of attempted murder.
Following an April 9, 2014, shooting in Red Bank, the victim, who survived 12 shots, told his grandmother that Sims shot him. The victim also identified a photo of defendant as the shooter, gave a description of defendant, and said that A.M. was Sims' girlfriend.
On April 14. 2014, Sims was arrested. When Sims asked why he was being arrested, the officer responded they would "get into details" when they got to police headquarters. But they never did. Prior to Sims signing the Miranda form and giving a statement, he was not told of the potential attempted murder charge because "at this point in time, no specific charges had been filed against defendant, but he had been placed under arrest."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Civil Reservations: An Important Tool for New Jersey Courts and Criminal Defendants
7 minute read
Former Fed Prosecutor Takes Leadership Role in NJ AG's Public Corruption Department
4 minute read
NJ Supreme Court Weighs Scientific Reliability of Shaken Baby Syndrome
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
