Miranda Rights Case Summary

This case involves a person suffering from schizophrenia who confessed to murder. The case contains a number of issues including the accuracy of things that are presented by someone who is not in his right mind. Nevertheless, the big question here is if this person has the reasonable understanding to appreciate what waiving the Miranda rights mean. In support of the state, the brief had the purpose of saying that the respondent’s confessions were not involuntary even though he was suffering from a mental disease and arguing that they were the result of hallucinations. The Amicus brief was submitted for the simple reason that they believe the defendant was indeed competent to waive Miranda rights. The brief said that the study of human behavior offers a finite support to the legal system when it comes to evaluate the capacity of each individual (American Psychological Association, 1986). It also said that proof did not warrant the fact that his free will was diminished and that in this case specifically suppression was not necessary. For that reason, one of the issues involved here is whether the constitution demands destroying the defendant’s confession when his mental state obstructs his free will. Another one is whether he is able to waive Miranda rights in that condition. The points or issues that led to the development of a better explanation cover
(1986). Brief of American Psychological Association,
American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Psychiatry and law as Amici curiae in support of petitioner. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986). Retrieved on Apr 6, 2017 from http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/colorado.aspx
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986). The State of Colorado, petitioner v. Francis Barry
Connelly on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado. Retrieved on Apr 6, 2017 from