The Miranda warning is a rule which provides that the police must give criminal suspects in the custody of the law enforcement officers, in the United States, a warning before they can ask questions about what took place during the crime. The rule is exclusionary in that any evidence that is obtained with the violation of the Miranda rules can be successfully suppressed in a court of law. The rule was mandated by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1966 in the case of Miranda v Arizona. This decision was made in order to protect the Fifth Amendment right of the criminal and help prevent self-incrimination during interrogation by law enforcement agents.
In this case, in the first instance, the police violated the requirement of the Miranda warnings by not warning the girl of her rights as a suspect. It is thus true to say that the evidence obtained from the girl’s confession in the first instance is not admissible. As such the evidence can successfully be suppressed due to violation of the Miranda warning.
However, the second evidence obtained from the second confession can be used as evidence against the girl. This is because the police officers corrected the mistake they had made in the first instance. Their decision to now read, Kacy, her warning made the new evidence valid. The second confession is therefore voluntary and unforced. This was stated in a California Supreme Court decision which explained that a statement which is obtained without the Miranda warnings does not have an effect on a second statement obtained without violation of the Miranda rule. This remains true provided the second statement was voluntary.
This rule applies even when it is clear that the suspect would have changed his mind had he known that the first statement could not be used as evidence. Such is the case of Kacy who only makes the confession in the second instance because she believed the damage was already done by the first confession.
In conclusion, the police should not be allowed to use the first confession because it was obtained through a violation of the Miranda. However, they are allowed to use the second confession since they corrected their technical violation in the first instance and read Kacy the Miranda warnings.
References
Giovanni, N. (2012). Miranda: Questioning after a 'Technical' Violation. The Internet Wriring Journal, 5-15.
