What is the current state of the law on Miranda rights?

"[A]ll that is required for a valid waiver of [Miranda] rights is that the defendant understand that he could stand mute, request a lawyer and that anything he did choose to say could be used against him to secure a conviction." (People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 991-992.) For that reason, "[u]nadorned Miranda warnings . . . sufficed to give defendant all the information necessary for him to make a knowing and intelligent choice to waive or invoke his right to counsel." (People v. Clark, supra, at p. 992.)

"In general, if a custodial suspect, having heard and understood a full explanation of his or her Miranda rights, then makes an uncompelled and uncoerced decision to talk, he or she has thereby knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived them. [Citation.] Law enforcement officers are not required to obtain an express waiver of a suspect's Miranda rights prior to a custodial interview. [Citation.] Rather, a valid waiver of Miranda rights may . . . be inferred from the defendant's words and actions." (People v.

Page 4

Cunningham (2015) 61 Cal.4th 609, 642.) "A suspect's expressed willingness to answer questions after acknowledging an understanding of his or her Miranda rights has itself been held sufficient to constitute an implied waiver of such rights." (People v. Sauceda-Contreras (2012) 55 Cal.4th 203, 218-219.)

" 'On review of a trial court's decision on a Miranda issue, we accept the trial court's determination of disputed facts if supported by substantial evidence, but we independently decide whether the challenged statements were obtained in violation of Miranda.' " (People v. Hensley (2014) 59 Cal.4th 788, 809.)