Question

After a defendant has invoked their right to remain silent during an interrogation, in order for the court to accept a defendant's subsequent waiver, the main thing the court must consider is whether the police actually respected the defendant's right to cut off questioning.

Answer 1

A court must ensure the police respected a defendant's initial right to remain silent to accept a subsequent waiver, requiring the waiver be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

Step-by-step explanation:

After a defendant has invoked their right to remain silent during an interrogation, the main factor the court must look at to accept a subsequent waiver of this right is whether their initial right to discontinue questioning was honored by the police. This principle is derived from several Supreme Court rulings. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights—including the right to remain silent—and that interrogation must cease if they choose to exercise that right. However, a suspect can later choose to waive these rights and provide a subsequent waiver, as shown in Montejo v. Louisiana. Such a waiver must be made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and the court must be satisfied that the police waited after the initial assertion of the right to remain silent. Moreover, per Berghuis v. Thompkins, a suspect must invoke the right to remain silent unambiguously for it to be recognized.