Legal Issues

Confessions, as a source of evidence, are distinguished from admissions. Whereas a confession is a complete acknowledgement of guilt in criminal proceedings, an admission is a statement of fact in either a civil or a criminal case. In former times, the confession was considered the ultimate form of evidence. As soon as the accused confessedoften under duressno further proof was required. In time, involuntary confession came to be rejected as evidence under  HYPERLINK httpwww.britannica.comEBcheckedtopic188090English-law o English law English law, and the burden of proving that a confession was voluntary lay with the prosecutor (Britannica, 2010).

The Teen Mother Murder Case
Christopher Mikels and Douglas Mandichak of Maple Shade, in statements given to investigators, admitted participation to the murder of a 17-year old mother named Felicia Mikels.  On Friday, Jan. 18, the suspects sent her a text message on her cell phone asking her to meet them. With her baby in a stroller, she walked to a bowling alley near her home. She got into a pickup truck with Mikels and Mandichak and they drove to a parking lot at Pennsauken business where the victim was beaten to death with a 4X 4 piece of wood.  The two men wrapped her in a canvas tarp and drove approximately five miles to Cinnaminson, where they dumped her into the icy Pennsauken Creek off North Fork Landing Road and Route 73.  They were subsequently arrested and eventually confessed to the killing. Both Mandichak and Mikels are charged with murder and remain in custody.  Mandichak faces a prison sentence of up to 30 years, of which sentencing is scheduled for April 1, 2010. Christopher Mikels is currently awaiting trial on a charge of murder.

The Miranda Warnings
In Miranda v. Arizona, a written statement of confession by an accused obtained by police without being informed of the right to an attorney to be present during questioning, signed by the accused was considered inadmissible.  In reversing the decision of the trial court, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the mere fact that he signed a statement which contained a typed-in clause stating that he had full knowledge of his legal rights does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).

In the aforementioned case, any statements made by both Mikels and Mandichak without the requirements laid down in Miranda v. Arizona would violate the defendants rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and therefore be inadmissible as evidence against them, of which the consequence may be dismissal of the case upon motion.  By now, before questioning or interrogation, both the accused should be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.  Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).  However, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed.