Possible Error in Allowing Testimony of Pretrial Services Held Harmless

In a kidnapping trial, the State called a pretrial services officer, a county employee who interviews criminal defendants to determine whether they should get a personal- free- bail bond to testify about what a defendant had told her about his alleged affirmative defense. The defendant had not been Mirandized. The Austin Court of Appeals analyzed the pretrial services officer's role, appearing to be heading toward the conclusion that since the defendant was in custody, was being interrogated after a fashion, he should have been Mirandized if his statements could have been used against him later. The court did not reach a conclusion one way or another because they found that even if the statements should not have come in, the error would have been harmless, given the rest of evidence properly admitted.
The Court also considered that the improper objection to a voir dire question was harmless, because all of the panelists impacted were struck, that the refusal of the court to strike a panelist for cause was proper, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the kidnapping victim was not released in a safe place.

Unarrested, Hospitalized Man in Custody as to Miranda

It's a mainstay of TV-- cops reading suspects their rights. Suspects' statements in custody may only be used in the cases-in-chief of their trials if they were read their rights before they made the statements. People who have been arrested are clearly in custody, but what about a hospitalized, unarrested suspect? The Colorado Supreme Court answered this question in Effland v. People, No. 09SC70, (Sept. 27, 2010), holding, in a 4-3 decision that under the totality of the circumstances, a hospitalized man was in custody per Miranda. His un-Mirandized hospital statements couldn't be used in the case-in-chief at his trial. Hat tip to Lawyers USA.

Television Is Not Law School

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is commonly misunderstood. The statement of the accused may be used at trial so long as the accused was not in custody and also not protected from waiving the right to remain silent. This rule is subject to exceptions and the effect of this rule may be changed by other rules. The point I am trying to make is that to have a Miranda violation, you have to have the accused being (1)questioned while in (2)custody. If a person runs up to a strange cop on the beat and the cop asks "What's the matter with you? Did you do something wrong?" and the cop does nothing to indicate that the person has to stay to talk, and the person confesses to a crime, then that what the person says can be used at trial. Why? No custody. Another hypothetical: a person is arrested for overdue traffic tickets. That person speaks no English and none of the arresting officers speak the arrestee's language. They put the arrestee in a cell while they look for a translator. While waiting in jail, unable to communicate with anyone, he uses toilet paper to write out a murder confession in the language that none of the cops can figure out. When a translator is eventually found, Miranda does not keep this confession from being used at trial. Why? No questioning.
One more thing- Miranda warnings are not required for videos of the accused to be introduced showing that defendant couldn't walk or hit somebody. It's not needed for handwriting samples. It's not the reason warrants are sometimes required for blood samples. Thanks for Jamie Spencer of the Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer blog for pointing out the broad popular misunderstanding of Miranda.

Law Enforcement Questioning Strategy re Shahzad

This post would be particularly interesting for criminal law amateurs. I'd feel better if the best law enforcement interviewer I have ever personally worked with-- Susan Maxwell of the 23d District Court's District Attorney's Office-- were working it.