Everything You Wanted and Need to Know and More About Miranda Warnings

As a criminal defense lawyer in Chicago, Illinois, I get calls every day from individuals that have been arrested and charged with various crimes. I always begin by allowing the prospective client to explain what happened to them and how they ended up in a position where they are now looking to hire a criminal defense attorney. The most common thing I hear as I listen to a client explains his/her case is, “The police never read me my rights.” If you watch television, you understand why the issue of rights is front of mind for almost everyone that is arrested. On television, as soon as a police officer places a suspect under arrest, they immediately read the person their rights. Therefore, in the real world of criminal justice, when a person is arrested, they are surprised and often angered when the officer “neglects” to read the person their rights. In reality, police are not required and in fact should rarely ever read a suspect their rights upon arrest. In this article, I will discuss the situations in which the rights must be read to a suspect.

To begin with, these rights that we all see on television are known as Miranda warnings. The name comes from the 1966 Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. This was the case that established the requirement of police in certain situations to inform a suspect of certain rights. Prior to this case, there was no such requirement nor is there any mention of these rights in the Constitution. What are these Miranda warnings that must be given in certain situations? Generally speaking, the officer must inform the suspect that: (1) they have the right to remain silent, (2) that anything they say may be used against them in court, (3) that they have a right to have an attorney present during any questioning and (4) that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to them at no cost. The officer then asks the suspect if they understand these rights and whether the suspect wishes to speak to the police about the case in question.

Now that we know the Miranda warnings, the question becomes when they must be given. In order for the Miranda warnings to be required, two things must be true. First, the suspect must be in police custody. In other words, the suspect is not fee to leave. Second, the police officer must intend on questioning the suspect. Unless the suspect is both in police custody and about to be interrogated, there is no need for the police officer to read rights to the suspect.

What happens if a person is in custody, they are questioned by police, but the police fail to read the suspect their rights under Miranda? This does not mean that the case must be dismissed. The only consequence is that statement given by the suspect will not be allowed to be used at trial against the defendant. In some cases, this is of little consequence. In other words, if there is a mountain of evidence against a suspect, the prosecutors can likely win a case without use of the defendant’s confession. However, in a close case, a prosecutor’s inability to use a defendant’s confession might result in a finding of not guilty. Unfortunately for criminal defense lawyers, police are trained with regard to Miranda warnings and getting statements dismissed is not an everyday occurrence.

If you or a loved one has been arrested and charged with a crime in Chicago or the suburbs, it is critical that you contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. A skilled criminal lawyer will ensure that your rights are protected and fight hard to defend your liberty.

Chicago Criminal Defense Law of Accountability - What Does it Mean?

Criminal defendants are often surprised to learn that they can be charged and convicted for the criminal actions of another person. This is known as the law of accountability. According to the jury instructions given in accountability cases, “A person is legally responsible for the conduct of another person when, either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of that offense, he knowingly solicits, aids, abets, agrees to aid or attempts to aid the other person in the planning or commission of an offense.”

This does not mean that a person will be charged and convicted because they happen to be with another person that commits a crime. That would be guilt by association and the law does not punish individuals for merely associating with someone who commits a crime. Instead, to be held accountable for another person’s crime, an individual must assist in the planning or execution of the crime and at the same time intend that the crime be committed. An example should help in understanding when a person is or is not accountable for the crime of another.

Let’s take the case of an armed robbery. Assume that Jeff wants to commit the offense of armed robbery and tells his friend Jason. Jeff explains to Jason that he needs Jason to drive him to a certain area of Chicago so that Jeff can find somebody to target. Jason doesn’t want to let Jeff down so he agrees to drive Jeff to a certain area so that Jeff can target someone for a robbery. Jason then drives Jeff to the corner of Clark and North Avenue in Chicago. Jeff jumps out of the car and commits a robbery on an innocent victim. When Jeff finishes, he jumps in Jason’s car and they drive away from the scene. A few minutes later Jason is pulled over by Chicago police and both are arrested. Jason tells police that he did not commit a robbery. Jason further explains that he merely drove Jeff to the scene so that Jeff could commit the robbery. Jason explains that he watched Jeff commit the robbery and then drove Jeff away from the scene so that Jeff would not get caught. In this case, Jason will most likely be joining Jeff in prison. Although Jason did not actually commit the robbery, he is accountable for Jeff’s criminal conduct because he aided Jeff and knew that Jeff would commit the robbery.

On the other hand, let’s assume that Jeff called Jason and told Jason that he needed a ride to the Best Buy in Lincoln Park. Jason agrees to drive Jeff and drops him off at the store. Jason agrees to wait until Jeff returns from the store. After about 5 minutes, Jeff jumps back in the car and tells Jason to speed away. Jason complies and heads quickly toward downtown Chicago. After about 10 minutes of driving, Jeff tells Jason that he just committed a robbery. Jason is surprised but does not call the police on his good friend. Just then, the police pull Jason over and arrest both Jason and Jeff. At trial, the evidence shows that Jason did not know that Jeff would commit a robbery. The evidence showed that Jason merely believed he was taking Jeff to Best Buy. Although Jason did help Jeff get to and from the robbery scene, Jason is found not guilty because he is not accountable for Jeff’s criminal conduct.

The most important thing to remember is that just because you yourself did not actually commit the robbery, pulls the trigger, or steals the car, does not mean you will not be charged and convicted of the crime. If you ever find yourself charged with a crime in Chicago or the suburbs, contact a criminal defense lawyer/attorney immediately.