Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Moran v. Burbine

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureMirandaFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentDue ProcessMiranda waiverknowing intelligent voluntary waiverattorney phone call

Facts

While in custody on a burglary-related arrest, respondent was questioned before arraignment about a murder. Before each interrogation session, police gave Miranda warnings, obtained written waivers, and respondent never requested counsel. Meanwhile, respondent's sister contacted the Public Defender's Office, and an assistant public defender called the station, said she would act as counsel if police questioned him, and was told police would not question him further that night. Respondent did not know about his sister's efforts or the attorney's phone call, and later that evening he signed written statements confessing to the murder.

Issue

Whether a prearraignment confession obtained after otherwise valid Miranda warnings and written waivers must be suppressed because police misled an attorney who inquired about the suspect and failed to inform the suspect of the attorney's efforts to contact him. Also, whether the Sixth Amendment or Due Process Clause required suppression on these facts.

Rule

A waiver of Miranda rights is valid when it is voluntary and made with full awareness of the nature of the rights abandoned and the consequences of abandoning them. Events unknown to the suspect, including an attorney's unilateral efforts to reach him or police deception of that attorney, do not affect the suspect's capacity to knowingly and intelligently waive Miranda rights. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only upon the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings, and on these facts the police conduct did not rise to a due process violation.

🔒

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 Toledo, Ohio, police arrested Devin Cole on suspicion of auto theft. Before questioning him about an unrelated fatal shooting, officers gave full Miranda warnings, confirmed he understood them, and obtained a signed waiver; Devin never asked for a lawyer. Meanwhile, his mother retained attorney Lena Ortiz, who called the station and was falsely told no questioning would occur until morning, but Devin was never told about the call.

If Devin later moves to suppress his confession under the Fifth Amendment, what is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority held that a Miranda waiver is valid if it is voluntary and made with full awareness of the rights abandoned and the consequences of abandoning them. Facts outside the suspect's knowledge—such as a lawyer's unilateral attempt to reach him or police deception of that lawyer—do not affect the suspect's capacity to comprehend and waive his rights. Because Devin received full warnings, understood them, signed a waiver, and did not request counsel, suppression is not required on these facts.