University:
University College London
Course:
LAWS0013 | Tort Law
Academic year:

2023
Views:

326

Pages:

2
Author:

Maverick Martin

North Carolina v. Butler 1979 Facts: Butler was arrested by an FBI agent and subsequently convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, and felonious assault FBI officer testified that at the time of the arrest he fully advised the respondent of his Miranda rights Agents determined that the respondent had an 11th grade education and was literate, given the Bureau's "Advice of Rights" form which he read When asked if he understood his rights he replied yes Respondent refused to sign the waiver at the bottom of the form He was told that he needed neither to speak nor sign the waiver but that the agents would like him to talk to them "I will talk to you but I'm not signing any form" The made inculpatory statements Said nothing when advised of his right to counsel nor did he ever request counsel or attempt to terminate the agents questioning Motion to suppress based that he had not waived his right to the assistance of counsel at the time of the statements On appeal to NC Supreme Court the conviction was reversed Found the statements had been admitted in violation of the requirements of the Miranda decision The respondent had refused to waive in writing his right to have counsel present and that there had not been a specific oral waiver Miranda opinion: "providing in plain language that waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation will not be recognized unless such waiver is specifically made after the Miranda warnings have been given" Issue: Is a defendant's self-incriminating testimony inadmissible when there is no express waiver of Miranda rights? Holding: no If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver But a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given HELD: An express statement can constitute a waiver, and that silence alone after such warnings cannot do so Express written or oral statement of waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of waiver, but is not inevitable necessary or sufficient to establish waiver North Carolina's judgment creates an inflexible rule that no implicit waiver can ever suffice, going beyond the requirements of federal organic law -> follows that it's judgment cannot stand since a state court can neither add to nor subtract from the mandates of the constitution Today: allows finding of waiver based upon "inference from the actions and words of the person interrogated" Ambiguity interpreted against the interrogator Recognition of the "compulsion inherent in custodial" interrogation and its purpose "to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner"