Police arrested respondent as a suspect in a rape and beating and questioned him while in custody before Miranda was decided. They told him he had the right to remain silent, that his statements could be used against him, and asked whether he wanted an attorney, but they did not tell him counsel would be appointed if he was indigent. In response, respondent said he had been with Robert Henderson during part of the relevant time, and police located Henderson through that information. At trial, respondent's own statements were excluded, but Henderson testified and respondent was convicted.
Issue
Must the testimony of a witness discovered solely through a suspect's custodial statements be excluded when the suspect was questioned before Miranda and was not advised that appointed counsel would be provided if indigent, even though the suspect's own statements were excluded at trial?
Rule
When police questioning did not actually infringe the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination but instead failed only to provide the full prophylactic safeguards later required by Miranda, the derivative testimony of a third-party witness need not be excluded. In deciding whether to exclude such evidence, the Court looks to the purposes of exclusion, especially deterrence and trustworthiness, and gives weight to the officers' good-faith reliance on pre-Miranda standards.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In 1965, police in Toledo arrested Omar Benton on suspicion of burglary and questioned him at the station. They told him he could remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him, and asked whether he wanted a lawyer; he said no. They did not tell him that a lawyer would be appointed if he could not afford one. Omar then mentioned spending part of the evening with Devin Shaw, whom police later called as a trial witness after Omar's own statements were excluded.
Should Devin's testimony be suppressed?
Explanation. The majority distinguished actual compulsion from a mere failure to provide the full prophylactic safeguards later required by Miranda. Where the suspect's own statements were excluded, the interrogation was otherwise noncoercive, and the only defect was omission of the appointed-counsel warning in a pre-Miranda setting, the testimony of a third-party witness discovered through that statement need not be suppressed. The Court rejected automatic fruit analysis in this narrow situation.