California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Krebs, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 95, 452 P.3d 609, 8 Cal.5th 265 (Cal. 2019):
We begin with the uncontroverted premise that statements made by a defendant subject to custodial interrogation are inadmissible (for certain purposes) unless the defendant was "warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." ( Miranda , supra , 384 U.S. at p. 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; see Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 224, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1.) "The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently." ( Miranda , supra , 384 U.S. at p. 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602.)
"On appeal, we review independently the trial courts legal determinations
[452 P.3d 639]
of whether a defendants ... Miranda waivers were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made [citation], and whether his later actions constituted an invocation of his right to silence [citation]. We evaluate the trial courts factual findings regarding the circumstances surrounding the defendants statements and waivers, and " "accept the trial courts resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence." " ( People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 115, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 454, 180 P.3d 224 ( Rundle ).)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.