[This goes on for about 2-3 hours, and can proceed even if the guy says he wants a lawyer and doesn't want to say anything - with certain very minor limitations on the use of any resulting confession.]
If you're interested in this sort of thing you can find more online resources by starting at http://www.criminaljustice.org/ . Be warned, however, you should not engage in this sort of activity after eating.
>Case Name MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436
>
>NO. 759. ARGUED FEBRUARY 28-MARCH 1, 1966. - DECIDED JUNE 13, 1966.* -
>
>
>one interesting thing is that long before the miranda case the
>fbi almost always gave a warning simular to the miranda warning
>whenever they questioned people. i suspect to cover their butts
>in court.
>
> "'THE STANDARD WARNING LONG GIVEN BY SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE FBI TO
> BOTH SUSPECTS AND PERSONS UNDER ARREST IS THAT THE PERSON HAS A RIGHT
> TO SAY NOTHING AND A RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AND THAT ANY STATEMENT HE DOES
> MAKE MAY BE USED AGAINST HIM IN COURT. EXAMPLES OF THIS WARNING ARE TO
> BE FOUND IN THE WESTOVER CASE AT 342 F.2D 684 (1965), AND JACKSON V.
> U.S., 337 F.2D 136 (1964), CERT. DEN. 380 U.S. 935.
>
>the next paragraph was on the 1st page of the miranda case.
>the cops have never done it when they stopped me.
>
> (E) IF THE INDIVIDUAL INDICATES, PRIOR TO OR DURING QUESTIONING,
> THAT HE WISHES TO REMAIN SILENT, THE INTERROGATION MUST CEASE; IF HE
> STATES THAT HE WANTS AN ATTORNEY, THE QUESTIONING MUST CEASE UNTIL AN
> ATTORNEY IS PRESENT. PP. 473-474.
>
>as i have said in the past when ever im stopped by the cops
>i always tell them i dont want talk to them and i want a lawyer.
>
>in each case execpt when i was shaken down by the tempe cops
>last november the cops have threaten to punish, arrest me, or
>make things difficult if i continued to refuse to answer their questions.
>i was shocked and confused after i told the tempe cop that i didnt
>want to answer any of his questions and i wanted to speak to a lawyer
>and the tempe cop said
>
> "ok them we wont ask you any questions".
>
>i also refused to show them any id and again i was shocked because the
>tempe cop didnt steal my wallet looking for id as cops as the phoenix,
>scottsdale, and mesa cops have done. which is the reason i dont carry id.
>
>but after i was in custody for about an hour another tempe cop, did
>come and question me, demand id, even threatened to arrest me on
>a tempe city code that makes it a crime to not provide cops with id.
>they released me in another 15 minutes even though i still refused
>to tell them my name or give them any id.
>
>the stuff that follows is mostly on the methods the cops used to question
>people and what the judges think about it. its word for word out of
>the miranda case
>
>
>AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE AND SETTING OF THIS IN-CUSTODY
>INTERROGATION IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR DECISIONS TODAY. THE DIFFICULTY IN
>DEPICTING WHAT TRANSPIRES AT SUCH INTERROGATIONS STEMS FROM THE FACT
>THAT IN THIS COUNTRY THEY HAVE LARGELY TAKEN PLACE INCOMMUNICADO. FROM
>EXTENSIVE FACTUAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN IN THE EARLY 1930'S, INCLUDING THE
>FAMOUS WICKERSHAM REPORT TO CONGRESS BY A PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION, IT
>IS CLEAR THAT POLICE VIOLENCE AND THE "THIRD DEGREE" FLOURISHED AT THAT
>TIME. (FN5) IN A SERIES OF CASES DECIDED BY THIS COURT LONG AFTER
>THESE STUDIES, THE POLICE RESORTED TO PHYSICAL BRUTALITY - BEATING,
>HANGING, WHIPPING - AND TO SUSTAINED AND PROTRACTED QUESTIONING
>INCOMMUNICADO IN ORDER TO EXTORT CONFESSIONS. (FN6) THE COMMISSION ON
>CIVIL RIGHTS IN 1961 FOUND MUCH EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT "SOME
>POLICEMEN STILL RESORT TO PHYSICAL FORCE TO OBTAIN CONFESSIONS," 1961
>COMM'N ON CIVIL RIGHTS REP., JUSTICE, PT. 5, 17. THE USE OF PHYSICAL
>BRUTALITY AND VIOLENCE IS NOT, UNFORTUNATELY, RELEGATED TO THE PAST OR
>TO ANY PART OF THE COUNTRY. ONLY RECENTLY IN KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK,
>THE POLICE BRUTALLY BEAT, KICKED AND PLACED LIGHTED CIGARETTE BUTTS ON
>THE BACK OF A POTENTIAL WITNESS UNDER INTERROGATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
>SECURING A STATEMENT INCRIMINATING A THIRD PARTY. PEOPLE V. PORTELLI,
>15 N.Y.2D 235, 205 N.E.2D 857, 257 N.Y.S.2D 931 (1965). (FN7)
>
>
>THE EXAMPLES GIVEN ABOVE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY THE EXCEPTION NOW, BUT THEY
>ARE SUFFICIENTLY WIDESPREAD TO BE THE OBJECT OF CONCERN. UNLESS A
>PROPER LIMITATION UPON CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IS ACHIEVED - SUCH AS
>THESE DECISIONS WILL ADVANCE - THERE CAN BE NO ASSURANCE THAT PRACTICES
>OF THIS NATURE WILL BE ERADICATED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THE
>CONCLUSION OF THE WICKERSHAM COMMISSION REPORT, MADE OVER 30 YEARS AGO,
>IS STILL PERTINENT:
>
><snip>
>
> NOT ONLY DOES THE USE OF THE THIRD DEGREE INVOLVE A FLAGRANT
>VIOLATION OF LAW BY THE OFFICERS OF THE LAW, BUT IT INVOLVES ALSO THE
>DANGERS OF FALSE CONFESSIONS, AND IT TENDS TO MAKE POLICE AND
>PROSECUTORS LESS ZEALOUS IN THE SEARCH FOR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. AS THE
>NEW YORK PROSECUTOR QUOTED IN THE REPORT SAID, 'IT IS A SHORT CUT AND
>MAKES THE POLICE LAZY AND UNENTERPRISING.' OR, AS ANOTHER OFFICIAL
>QUOTED REMARKED: 'IF YOU USE YOUR FISTS, YOU ARE NOT SO LIKELY TO USE
>YOUR WITS.' WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION EXPRESSED IN THE REPORT, THAT
>'THE THIRD DEGREE BRUTALIZES THE POLICE, HARDENS THE PRISONER AGAINST
>SOCIETY, AND LOWERS THE ESTEEM IN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
>IS HELD BY THE PUBLIC.'" IV NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND
>ENFORCEMENT, REPORT ON LAWLESSNESS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 5 (1931).
>
>AGAIN WE STRESS THAT THE MODERN PRACTICE OF IN-CUSTODY INTERROGATION
>IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY RATHER THAN PHYSICALLY ORIENTED. AS WE HAVE STATED
>BEFORE, "SINCE CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, THIS COURT HAS
>RECOGNIZED THAT COERCION CAN BE MENTAL AS WELL AS PHYSICAL, AND THAT
>THE BLOOD OF THE ACCUSED IS NOT THE ONLY HALLMARK OF AN
>UNCONSTITUTIONAL INQUISITION." BLACKBURN V. ALABAMA, 361 U.S. 199, 206
>(1960). INTERROGATION STILL TAKES PLACE IN PRIVACY. PRIVACY RESULTS
>IN SECRECY AND THIS IN TURN RESULTS IN A GAP IN OUR KNOWLEDGE AS TO
>WHAT IN FACT GOES ON IN THE INTERROGATION ROOMS. A VALUABLE SOURCE OF
>INFORMATION ABOUT PRESENT POLICE PRACTICES, HOWEVER, MAY BE FOUND IN
>VARIOUS POLICE MANUALS AND TEXTS WHICH DOCUMENT PROCEDURES EMPLOYED
>WITH SUCCESS IN THE PAST, AND WHICH RECOMMEND VARIOUS OTHER EFFECTIVE
>TACTICS. (FN8) THESE TEXTS ARE USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
>THEMSELVES AS GUIDES. (FN9) IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE TEXTS
>PROFESSEDLY PRESENT THE MOST ENLIGHTENED AND EFFECTIVE MEANS PRESENTLY
>USED TO OBTAIN STATEMENTS THROUGH CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. BY
>CONSIDERING THESE TEXTS AND OTHER DATA, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE
>PROCEDURES OBSERVED AND NOTED AROUND THE COUNTRY. THE OFFICERS ARE
>TOLD BY THE MANUALS THAT THE "PRINCIPAL PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTOR
>CONTRIBUTING TO A SUCCESSFUL INTERROGATION IS PRIVACY - BEING ALONE
>WITH THE PERSON UNDER INTERROGATION." (FN10) THE EFFICACY OF THIS
>TACTIC HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: "IF AT ALL PRACTICABLE, THE
>INTERROGATION SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE INVESTIGATOR'S OFFICE OR AT
>LEAST IN A ROOM OF HIS OWN CHOICE. THE SUBJECT SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF
>EVERY PSYCHOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE. IN HIS OWN HOME HE MAY BE CONFIDENT,
>INDIGNANT, OR RECALCITRANT. HE IS MORE KEENLY AWARE OF HIS RIGHTS AND
>MORE RELUCTANT TO TELL OF HIS INDISCRETIONS OR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR WITHIN
>THE WALLS OF HIS HOME. MOREOVER HIS FAMILY AND OTHER FRIENDS ARE
>NEARBY, THEIR PRESENCE LENDING MORAL SUPPORT. IN HIS OWN OFFICE, THE
>INVESTIGATOR POSSESSES ALL THE ADVANTAGES. THE ATMOSPHERE SUGGESTS THE
>INVINCIBILITY OF THE FORCES OF THE LAW." (FN11)
>
>TO HIGHLIGHT THE ISOLATION AND UNFAMILIAR SURROUNDINGS, THE MANUALS
>INSTRUCT THE POLICE TO DISPLAY AN AIR OF CONFIDENCE IN THE SUSPECT'S
>GUILT AND FROM OUTWARD APPEARANCE TO MAINTAIN ONLY AN INTEREST IN
>CONFIRMING CERTAIN DETAILS. THE GUILT OF THE SUBJECT IS TO BE POSITED
>AS A FACT. THE INTERROGATOR SHOULD DIRECT HIS COMMENTS TOWARD THE
>REASONS WHY THE SUBJECT COMMITTED THE ACT, RATHER THAN COURT FAILURE BY
>ASKING THE SUBJECT WHETHER HE DID IT. LIKE OTHER MEN, PERHAPS THE
>SUBJECT HAS HAD A BAD FAMILY LIFE, HAD AN UNHAPPY CHILDHOOD, HAD TOO
>MUCH TO DRINK, HAD AN UNREQUITED DESIRE FOR WOMEN. THE OFFICERS ARE
>INSTRUCTED TO MINIMIZE THE MORAL SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE, (FN12) TO
>CAST BLAME ON THE VICTIM OR ON SOCIETY. (FN13) THESE TACTICS ARE
>DESIGNED TO PUT THE SUBJECT IN A PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE WHERE HIS STORY IS
>BUT AN ELABORATION OF WHAT THE POLICE PURPORT TO KNOW ALREADY - THAT HE
>IS GUILTY. EXPLANATIONS TO THE CONTRARY ARE DISMISSED AND
>DISCOURAGED.
>
>THE TEXTS THUS STRESS THAT THE MAJOR QUALITIES AN INTERROGATOR SHOULD
>POSSESS ARE PATIENCE AND PERSERVERANCE. ONE WRITER DESCRIBES THE
>EFFICACY OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS IN THIS MANNER:
>
>"IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED ON KINDNESS AND
>STRATAGEMS. THE INVESTIGATOR WILL, HOWEVER, ENCOUNTER MANY SITUATIONS
>WHERE THE SHEER WEIGHT OF HIS PERSONALITY WILL BE THE DECIDING FACTOR.
>WHERE EMOTIONAL APPEALS AND TRICKS ARE EMPLOYED TO NO AVAIL, HE MUST
>RELY ON AN OPPRESSIVE ATMOSPHERE OF DOGGED PERSISTENCE. HE MUST
>INTERROGATE STEADILY AND WITHOUT RELENT, LEAVING THE SUBJECT NO
>PROSPECT OF SURCEASE. HE MUST DOMINATE HIS SUBJECT AND OVERWHELM HIM
>WITH HIS INEXORABLE WILL TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH. HE SHOULD INTERROGATE
>FOR A SPELL OF SEVERAL HOURS PAUSING ONLY FOR THE SUBJECT'S NECESSITIES
>IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE NEED TO AVOID A CHARGE OF DURESS THAT CAN BE
>TECHNICALLY SUBSTANTIATED. IN A SERIOUS CASE, THE INTERROGATION MAY
>CONTINUE FOR DAYS, WITH THE REQUIRED INTERVALS FOR FOOD AND SLEEP, BUT
>WITH NO RESPITE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE OF DOMINATION. IT IS POSSIBLE IN
>THIS WAY TO INDUCE THE SUBJECT TO TALK WITHOUT RESORTING TO DURESS OR
>COERCION. THE METHOD SHOULD BE USED ONLY WHEN THE GUILT OF THE SUBJECT
>APPEARS HIGHLY PROBABLE." (FN14)
>
>THE MANUALS SUGGEST THAT THE SUSPECT BE OFFERED LEGAL EXCUSES FOR HIS
>ACTIONS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN INITIAL ADMISSION OF GUILT. WHERE THERE
>IS A SUSPECTED REVENGE-KILLING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE INTERROGATOR MAY SAY:
>
>"JOE, YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T GO OUT LOOKING FOR THIS FELLOW WITH THE
>PURPOSE OF SHOOTING HIM. MY GUESS IS, HOWEVER, THAT YOU EXPECTED
>SOMETHING FROM HIM AND THAT'S WHY YOU CARRIED A GUN - FOR YOUR OWN
>PROTECTION. YOU KNEW HIM FOR WHAT HE WAS, NO GOOD. THEN WHEN YOU MET
>HIM HE PROBABLY STARTED USING FOUL, ABUSIVE LANGUAGE AND HE GAVE SOME
>INDICATION THAT HE WAS ABOUT TO PULL A GUN ON YOU, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU
>HAD TO ACT TO SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE. THAT'S ABOUT IT, ISN'T IT, JOE?"
>(FN15)
>
>HAVING THEN OBTAINED THE ADMISSION OF SHOOTING, THE INTERROGATOR IS
>ADVISED TO REFER TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH NEGATES THE SELF
>DEFENSE EXPLANATION. THIS SHOULD ENABLE HIM TO SECURE THE ENTIRE
>STORY. ONE TEXT NOTES THAT "EVEN IF HE FAILS TO DO SO, THE
>INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE SUBJECT'S ORIGINAL DENIAL OF THE SHOOTING AND
>HIS PRESENT ADMISSION OF AT LEAST DOING THE SHOOTING WILL SERVE TO
>DEPRIVE HIM OF A SELF-DEFENSE 'OUT' AT THE TIME OF TRIAL." (FN16)
>
>WHEN THE TECHNIQUES DESCRIBED ABOVE PROVE UNAVAILING, THE TEXTS
>RECOMMEND THEY BE ALTERNATED WITH A SHOW OF SOME HOSTILITY. ONE PLOY
>OFTEN USED HAS BEEN TERMED THE "FRIENDLY-UNFRIENDLY" OR THE "MUTT AND
>JEFF" ACT:
>
>" ... IN THIS TECHNIQUE, TWO AGENTS ARE EMPLOYED. MUTT, THE
>RELENTLESS INVESTIGATOR, WHO KNOWS THE SUBJECT IS GUILTY AND IS NOT
>GOING TO WASTE ANY TIME. HE'S SENT A DOZEN MEN AWAY FOR THIS CRIME AND
>HE'S GOING TO SEND THE SUBJECT AWAY FOR THE FULL TERM. JEFF, ON THE
>OTHER HAND, IS OBVIOUSLY A KINDHEARTED MAN. HE HAS A FAMILY HIMSELF.
>HE HAS A BROTHER WHO WAS INVOLVED IN A LITTLE SCRAPE LIKE THIS. HE
>DISAPPROVES OF MUTT AND HIS TACTICS AND WILL ARRANGE TO GET HIM OFF THE
>CASE IF THE SUBJECT WILL COOPERATE. HE CAN'T HOLD MUTT OFF FOR LONG.
>THE SUBJECT WOULD BE WISE TO MAKE A QUICK DECISION. THE TECHNIQUE IS
>APPLIED BY HAVING BOTH INVESTIGATORS PRESENT WHILE MUTT ACTS OUT HIS
>ROLE. JEFF MAY STAND BY QUIETLY AND DEMURE AT SOME OF MUTT'S TACTICS.
>WHEN JEFF MAKES HIS PLEA FOR COOPERATION, MUTT IS NOT PRESENT IN THE
>ROOM." (FN17)
>
>THE INTERROGATORS SOMETIMES ARE INSTRUCTED TO INDUCE A CONFESSION OUT
>OF TRICKERY. THE TECHNIQUE HERE IS QUITE EFFECTIVE IN CRIMES WHICH
>REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION OR WHICH RUN IN SERIES. IN THE IDENTIFICATION
>SITUATION, THE INTERROGATOR MAY TAKE A BREAK IN HIS QUESTIONING TO
>PLACE THE SUBJECT AMONG A GROUP OF MEN IN A LINE-UP. "THE WITNESS OR
>COMPLAINANT (PREVIOUSLY COACHED, IF NECESSARY) STUDIES THE LINE-UP AND
>CONFIDENTLY POINTS OUT THE SUBJECT AS THE GUILTY PARTY." (FN18) THEN
>THE QUESTIONING RESUMES "AS THOUGH THERE WERE NOW NO DOUBT ABOUT THE
>GUILT OF THE SUBJECT." A VARIATION ON THIS TECHNIQUE IS CALLED THE
>"REVERSE LINE-UP":
>
>"THE ACCUSED IS PLACED IN A LINE-UP, BUT THIS TIME HE IS IDENTIFIED
>BY SEVERAL FICTITIOUS WITNESSES OR VICTIMS WHO ASSOCIATED HIM WITH
>DIFFERENT OFFENSES. IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE SUBJECT WILL BECOME
>DESPERATE AND CONFESS TO THE OFFENSE UNDER INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO
>ESCAPE FROM THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS." (FN19)
>
>THE MANUALS ALSO CONTAIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR POLICE ON HOW TO HANDLE THE
>INDIVIDUAL WHO REFUSES TO DISCUSS THE MATTER ENTIRELY, OR WHO ASKS FOR
>AN ATTORNEY OR RELATIVES. THE EXAMINER IS TO CONCEDE HIM THE RIGHT TO
>REMAIN SILENT. "THIS USUALLY HAS A VERY UNDERMINING EFFECT. FIRST OF
>ALL, HE IS DISAPPOINTED IN HIS EXPECTATION OF AN UNFAVORABLE REACTION
>ON THE PART OF THE INTERROGATOR. SECONDLY, A CONCESSION OF THIS RIGHT
>TO REMAIN SILENT IMPRESSES THE SUBJECT WITH THE APPARENT FAIRNESS OF
>HIS INTERROGATOR." (FN20) AFTER THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING,
>HOWEVER, THE OFFICER IS TOLD TO POINT OUT THE INCRIMINATING
>SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUSPECT'S REFUSAL TO TALK:
>
>"JOE, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. THAT'S YOUR PRIVILEGE AND
>I'M THE LAST PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO'LL TRY TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOU.
>IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU WANT TO LEAVE THIS, O.K. BUT LET ME ASK YOU
>THIS. SUPPOSE YOU WERE IN MY SHOES AND I WERE IN YOURS AND YOU CALLED
>ME IN TO ASK ME ABOUT THIS AND I TOLD YOU, 'I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER ANY
>OF YOUR QUESTIONS.' YOU'D THINK I HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE, AND YOU'D
>PROBABLY BE RIGHT IN THINKING THAT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'LL HAVE TO
>THINK ABOUT YOU, AND SO WILL EVERYBODY ELSE. SO LET'S SIT HERE AND
>TALK THIS WHOLE THING OVER." (FN21)
>
>FEW WILL PERSIST IN THEIR INITIAL REFUSAL TO TALK, IT IS SAID, IF
>THIS MONOLOGUE IS EMPLOYED CORRECTLY.
>
>IN THE EVENT THAT THE SUBJECT WISHES TO SPEAK TO A RELATIVE OR AN
>ATTORNEY, THE FOLLOWING ADVICE IS TENDERED:
>
>"THE INTERROGATOR SHOULD RESPOND BY SUGGESTING THAT THE SUBJECT FIRST
>TELL THE TRUTH TO THE INTERROGATOR HIMSELF RATHER THAN GET ANYONE ELSE
>INVOLVED IN THE MATTER. IF THE REQUEST IS FOR AN ATTORNEY, THE
>INTERROGATOR MAY SUGGEST THAT THE SUBJECT SAVE HIMSELF OR HIS FAMILY
>THE EXPENSE OF ANY SUCH PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, PARTICULARLY IF HE IS
>INNOCENT OF THE OFFENSE UNDER INVESTIGATION. THE INTERROGATOR MAY ALSO
>ADD, 'JOE, I'M ONLY LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH, AND IF YOU'RE TELLING THE
>TRUTH, THAT'S IT. YOU CAN HANDLE THIS BY YOURSELF.'" (FN22)
>
>FROM THESE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, THE
>SETTING PRESCRIBED BY THE MANUALS AND OBSERVED IN PRACTICE BECOMES
>CLEAR. IN ESSENCE, IT IS THIS: TO BE ALONE WITH THE SUBJECT IS
>ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT DISTRACTION AND TO DEPRIVE HIM OF ANY OUTSIDE
>SUPPORT. THE AURA OF CONFIDENCE IN HIS GUILT UNDERMINES HIS WILL TO
>RESIST. HE MERELY CONFIRMS THE PRECONCEIVED STORY THE POLICE SEEK TO
>HAVE HIM DESCRIBE. PATIENCE AND PERSISTENCE, AT TIMES RELENTLESS
>QUESTIONING, ARE EMPLOYED. TO OBTAIN A CONFESSION, THE INTERROGATOR
>MUST "PATIENTLY MANEUVER HIMSELF OR HIS QUARRY INTO A POSITION FROM
>WHICH THE DESIRED OBJECTIVE MAY BE ATTAINED." (FN23) WHEN NORMAL
>PROCEDURES FAIL TO PRODUCE THE NEEDED RESULT, THE POLICE MAY RESORT TO
>DECEPTIVE STRATEGEMS SUCH AS GIVING FALSE LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS
>IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE SUBJECT OFF BALANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, BY TRADING ON
>HIS INSECURITY ABOUT HIMSELF OR HIS SURROUNDINGS. THE POLICE THEN
>PERSUADE, TRICK, OR CAJOLE HIM OUT OF EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
>RIGHTS.
>
>
><snip>
>
> THE
>ENTIRE THRUST OF POLICE INTERROGATION THERE, AS IN ALL THE CASES TODAY,
>WAS TO PUT THE DEFENDANT IN SUCH AN EMOTIONAL STATE AS TO IMPAIR HIS
>CAPACITY FOR RATIONAL JUDGMENT. THE ABDICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
>PRIVILEGE - THE CHOICE ON HIS PART TO SPEAK TO THE POLICE - WAS NOT
>MADE KNOWINGLY OR COMPETENTLY BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO APPRISE HIM OF
>HIS RIGHTS; THE COMPELLING ATMOSPHERE OF THE IN-CUSTODY INTERROGATION,
>AND NOT AN INDEPENDENT DECISION ON HIS PART, CAUSED THE DEFENDANT TO
>SPEAK.
>