•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Hundreds of cases have grappled with the application of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Many of those cases have dealt with the question of what constitutes "custodial interrogation" requiring "Miranda warnings" by law enforcement officers before statements elicited from a defendant may be used against him. In State v. McLean, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that, under the facts of that case, confronting a defendant with evidence against him does not constitute "interrogation." Therefore, statements made by the defendant properly were admitted against him even though he had not been advised of his rights under Miranda.

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.