to misc.legal.moderated
copy to my friend Paul, who I think will find this interesting.

Can statements made when police felt they had not enough reason to
consider someone a suspect be used to contradict statements made or
defenses raised after that person was mirandized?

Lately, I've been watching youtube police videos (of which there seems
to be an endless supply. I hope to quit soon). The police often arrive
and say, What's going on here? And after they hear more than one
version, they decide who, if anyone, seems likely to have broken the
law. Then they mirandize hir and ask more questions. Can things that
same person said earlier be used to contradict what he says after
Miranda?

I'm thinking about three sorts of statement, a) ones that are not at all inculpatory, but may be lies, like "I got to TGIF at 1PM and left at
3PM" or "I only had one drink". which can possibly be disproved and make
the person look like a liar, Or b) non-lies that make someone look
bad. "I was drunk behind the Olson barn and then I passed out, when he
might have used different words after Miranda, like "I was relaxing at
the farm of my friends, the Olsons, and I took a nap there."

c) statements that do lean towards culpability, like, "Sure I was
driving. Luke and Billy-Bob wanted to go to the liquor store and I gave
them a ride. I have no idea what they did when they went in". Then
later Billy-Bob claimed he did know and took a share of the loot and the suspect then says he didn't drive them at all. There is no other
evidence of who drove. No videos, no prints, and Luke was killed. Can
a statement made before Miranda be used to show that he was driving, be
used against someone as an admission just because the police had not yet realized he might be a suspect, or they pretended** to not realize it.

A, b, and c can make hir conviction more likely. Is it hir fault the
police were slow, or pretended to be slow, to suspect hir? Better yet,
why is the start of police suspicion the start of 5th Amendment rights?

**I haven't seen videos where it was apparent the police were
pretending. But a) it seems inevitable the opportunity could arise and eventually some would take advantage of it, b) the videos are edited.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)