Summary

Thurgood Marshall Bradley v. Ohio — Dissenting Opinion

Consistent with the need for a bright-line rule, the Court adopted a straightforward definition of "custodial interrogation": "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Ibid. In this case, petitioner, a prison inmate, challenged the admission of statements he made in response to direct questioning by prison officials following the murder of a prison employee on the ground that they had not given him the Miranda warnings.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Bradley v. Ohio — Dissenting Opinion

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. On this direct appeal, the State Court of Appeals found that "the detention of [petitioner] and other inmates here was similar to those restrictions imposed with every incident that would take place at the prison, [so] it did not necessarily place an added imposition on his freedom of movement such as to make a reasonable person believe there had been a restriction of his freedom over and above that in his normal prisoner setting."
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Bradley v. Ohio — Dissenting Opinion

This Court recently left open the question whether " [t] he bare fact of custody [would] in every instance require a warning even when the suspect is aware that he is speaking to an official." Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 299, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990) . In my view, Miranda and its progeny have already answered that question. In this case, petitioner was clearly in custody because he had been formally arrested. Moreover, his incarceration resulted in a severe restraint on his freedom of movement.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature