The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that its restrictions on “question first, warn later” confessions don’t apply where pre-Miranda questioning fails to yield relevant information.
Despite its ruling in State v. O’Neill, 193 N.J. 148 (2007), that a two-step interrogation process, in which Miranda warnings were given after police formed probable cause, was unconstitutional, the Court in State v. Yohnnson, A-37-09, said O’Neill was not applicable because the detective conducting the unwarned interview was unaware the defendant had not been told of his rights.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
