The U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, can sometimes be used to suppress statements made in Massachusetts drunk driving and vehicular homicide cases. Pursuant to the Miranda decision, the police must advise a person who is in custody of certain rights before questioning the person. Prior to any “custodial interrogation,” the police are to inform the suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. Statements made in violation of this clear rule should not be admitted in a Massachusetts DWI trial.
When the prosecution attempts to introduced a drunk driving defendant’s statements, which were the product of a custodial questioning, it must prove that the defendant made a knowingly, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his legal rights. Factors which can affect whether a statement is admissible on these grounds include the defendant’s literacy, ability to understand English, mental status, and state of drug or alcohol intoxication, to name a few.
The prosecution must also prove that, based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the questioning, the statements were the product of free will and not the result of coercion or intimidation by the police. For a statement made as a result of a custodial interrogation to be admissible, the prosecuting attorney must prove the issues of both “free will” and waiver, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Massachusetts DUI lawyers can challenge the admissibility of a defendant’s statements by filing a pre-trial motion to suppress. If the motion is granted, the defendant’s admissions or incriminating statements cannot be used during the drunk driving or vehicular homicide trial.
907 Comments.