“Intelligent” and “knowing” waiver

  1. bestmilitarydefensedefenseattorneys9.57.18PMMoran v. Burbine , 475 U.S. 412 (1986). Neither the police failure to inform a suspect of an attorney’s efforts to reach him, nor the police misinforming the attorney of their plans to interrogate the suspect undercuts an otherwise valid waiver by the suspect of his Miranda rights. 18 In Butler , the Court made a distinction between an express written or oral statement of waiver and a waiver clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated. However, both types of waiver were deemed sufficient for purposes of waiver of the right to counsel after appropriate advice.
  2. Colorado v. Spring , 479 U.S. 564 (1987). Accused was arrested for selling stolen firearms, was advised of his rights, which he waived, and questioned on the sales and also about a prior murder the police had not previously mentioned. “We hold that a suspect’s awareness of all the possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment privilege.” “Spring’s decision to waive his . . . privilege was voluntary. He alleges no ‘coercion . . . by physical violence or other deliberate means calculated to break [his] will.’” His waiver was “knowingly and intelligently made: that is, that Spring understood that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he said could be used as evidence against him.”
  3. Connecticut v. Barrett , 479 U.S. 523 (1987). In response to rights warnings, accused stated he would not give a written statement unless his attorney was present, but he would give an oral statement. Held: waiver was effective; “[t]he fact that some might find Barrett’s decision illogical is irrelevant, for we have never ‘embraced the theory that a defendant’s ignorance of the full consequences of his decisions vitiates their voluntariness.’”
  4. United States v. Thornton , 22 M.J. 574 (A.C.M.R. 1986). Accused’s consumption of 6 to 18 beers prior to interrogation did not invalidate otherwise proper rights waiver.

knowing waiver

prior to interrogation