Summary

Thurgood Marshall Pennsylvania v. Muniz — Opinion of the Court

See also Miranda, 384 U.S., at 476-477, 86 S.Ct., at 1629 ("The privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being compelled to incriminate himself in any manner; it does not distinguish degrees of incrimination. Similarly, for precisely the same reason, no distinction may be drawn between inculpatory statements and statements alleged to be merely 'exculpatory' ") . Thus, any response by Muniz that the prosecution sought to use against him was incriminating under Miranda.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Pennsylvania v. Muniz — Opinion of the Court

I dissent from the Court's holding in Part IV that Muniz's testimonial statements in connection with the three sobriety tests and the breathalyzer test were not the products of custodial interrogation. The police should have known that the circumstances in which they confronted Muniz, combined with the detailed instructions and questions concerning the tests and the Commonwealth's Implied Consent Law, were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, and therefore constituted the "functional equivalent" of express questioning.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature