Arizona v. Mauro

481 U.S. 520 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D freely admitted that he had killed his son. He directed the officers to the child's body, and then was arrested and advised of his constitutional rights. D told the officers that he did not wish to make any more statements without having a lawyer present. All questioning then ceased. One of the officers, Detective Manson, was questioning Ds wife in another room. After she finished speaking with Manson, she asked if she could speak to her husband. After Mrs. Mauro insisted and the police 'saw no harm in it' Manson was instructed not to leave them alone and to tape-record the conversation. Manson then 'told both of them that they could speak together only if an officer were present in the room to observe and hear what was going on.' The officer placed a tape recorder in plain sight on the desk. He recorded their brief conversation, in which she expressed despair about their situation. During the conversation, D told his wife not to answer questions until a lawyer was present. D claimed insanity. In rebuttal, P played the tape of the meeting between D and his wife, arguing that it demonstrated that D was sane on the day of the murder. D sought suppression as it was a product of police interrogation in violation of his Miranda rights. The trial court refused. It held that the police were legitimately concerned about security, both in terms of whether Mr. and Mrs. Mauro might cook up a lie or swap statements with each other that shouldn't have been allowed, and whether some escape attempt might have been made, or whether there might have been an attempt to smuggle in a weapon. The court held that the police did not gin up a ruse, nor a subterfuge. They did not create this situation to avoid the dictates of Miranda. D was convicted of murder and child abuse, and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed holding that the detectives interrogated D within the meaning of Miranda. Both detectives had acknowledged in pretrial hearings that they knew it was 'possible' that D might make incriminating statements if he saw his wife. It held that interrogation includes a 'practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect.' P appealed.