Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Michigan v. Mosley

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureMirandacustodial interrogationright to remain silentMirandaright to remain silentcustodial interrogationscrupulously honored

Facts

Mosley was arrested in Detroit in connection with two robberies and was advised of his Miranda rights before Detective Cowie questioned him about one robbery. When Mosley said he did not want to answer questions about the robberies, Cowie immediately stopped the interrogation, which had lasted about 20 minutes. More than two hours later, Detective Hill took Mosley to a different floor, gave him full Miranda warnings again, and questioned him about an unrelated homicide that had not been the subject of the first interrogation. Mosley then made an incriminating statement about the homicide, and he later sought to suppress it on the ground that the second questioning violated Miranda.

Issue

Does Miranda create a per se bar against any later custodial interrogation once a suspect has indicated a desire to remain silent? More specifically, was Mosley's homicide statement inadmissible because police questioned him again after he had refused to answer questions about the robberies?

Rule

Miranda does not impose a per se prohibition of indefinite duration against any further questioning once a suspect indicates a desire to remain silent. The admissibility of statements obtained after the suspect has decided to remain silent depends on whether the suspect's right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, detectives arrested Nolan Pierce on suspicion of a convenience-store theft. After receiving full Miranda warnings, Nolan said he did not want to answer questions about the theft, and the detective immediately ended the interview. Three hours later, a different detective on another floor gave Nolan fresh Miranda warnings and questioned him only about an unrelated arson in Mesa, and Nolan made incriminating statements.

Are Nolan's statements about the arson most likely admissible?

Explanation. The majority rejected a per se rule forbidding all later interrogation after a suspect says he wants to remain silent. The question is whether the suspect's right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored. Immediate cessation, no effort to pressure reconsideration, a significant time interval, fresh Miranda warnings, and questioning by another officer in another place about a different crime strongly support admissibility.