Michigan v. Mosley
Headline: Limits on the right to remain silent: Court allows police to re-question a suspect after a pause if warnings are reissued and the suspect’s decision to stop was respected.
Holding: The admissibility of a later confession depends on whether the suspect's decision to stop questioning was 'scrupulously honored'; here the Court held that police honored that right and the confession was admissible.
- Allows police to re-question suspects after a pause if warnings are reissued and rights are respected.
- Permits courts to admit later statements when the right to stop was 'scrupulously honored'.
- Places focus on procedure and timing when evaluating post‑refusal confessions.
Summary
Background
A man arrested in Detroit for recent bar robberies was given Miranda warnings and briefly questioned, then said he would not answer questions about those robberies and questioning stopped. After more than two hours in custody, a different detective brought him to another office, gave fresh Miranda warnings, and questioned him about an unrelated fatal robbery; the man then made an incriminating statement and was tried and convicted. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the second interrogation violated Miranda as a per se prohibition on further questioning.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court examined the Miranda passage that says interrogation must cease when a person indicates a wish to remain silent. The Court rejected a literal rule that bars any later questioning forever. Instead it held that admissibility of later statements turns on whether the suspect’s
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?