Miranda Rights Case Analysis

The case of AZ v Mauro, a necessary precursor to the case analysis is defining the application of Miranda Rights (Miranda v. Arizona) and the difference between an unlawful or lawful interrogation within the Miranda Rights. The most commonly misinterpreted actions that prompt the need for Miranda, which is only necessary if a formal custody and an interrogation will coincide. When Mirandized or given a Miranda warning informing an individual of their rights against self-incrimination, protected under the Fifth Amendment. These rights advise that the individual being arrested and taken into custody may choose to not answer any incriminating questions (which excludes standard identity or booking questions) without an attorney present. Otherwise

any statements given freely, before or after being advised of these rights, can be used as evidence of admission or a confession. A suspect may also choose to waive these rights, or they may later change their mind and decide to invoke their Miranda rights (also known as “pleading the Fifth”) in which any questioning must cease. However, if questioning by law enforcement takes place prior to being Mirandized any statements made by a suspect become inadmissible in court, this is also applicable to any non-verbal “interrogation” techniques used to provoke some type of incriminating declaration.

When a suspect in custody has chosen to waive their rights and provide police with information that is pertinent to reasons involving their arrest, interrogation is lawful- unless coerced by way of verbal threats, physical abuse, promises of stipulation upon a confession (procedural due process), or there is violation of substantive due process. If an officer is lawfully present and overhears or records a conversation or commentary, whether the suspect has been Mirandized or not, the overheard information is entirely admissible in court since there was no questioning or “interrogation” conducted in order to obtain that information. In the case of AZ v. Mauro, and many other cases, the issues regarding interrogation also relate to particular police conduct that is considered to be a type of “equivalent interrogation”, regardless if the officer’s behavior was in fact

lawful.
In November of 1982, William Carl Mauro was having breakfast when he heard his 7 year old son David screaming and crying in the bathroom, where he had been confined for several days. Mauro went to into the bathroom to quiet David, where he proceeded to suffocate his son by forcing one of the child’s rolled up socks and two cloth diapers down his throat. He then put the boy’s body in a suitcase. Mauro left the trailer, where he resided with his wife and family, without shoes or a coat, and was seen carrying the suitcase to a nearby field where he buried the suitcase under logs from a woodpile. Shortly after disposing of the suitcase, he entered the local K-Mart asking employees to call the police. The police were contacted and advised that Mauro was “delirious” and was exclaiming to have killed the devil. Once police arrived, Mauro insisted on showing them where the suitcase was hidden and stating that he killed his son, who was possessed by the devil. After he led them to the suitcase, he was then arrested and taken to the police station, but due to the small size of the the suitcase they police took precautionary measures and had it examined by bomb experts. Then Mauro was formally arrested at the scene where the boy’s body was discovered by Detective Allen, he was Mirandized and confirmed that he understood his rights. Upon arriving at the police station Mauro was once again advised of his Miranda rights and stated that he did not wish to speak without an attorney present.
During this time, Mrs. Mauro was at the station for questioning while Mr. Mauro was held in another room. In the interview with Detective Manson, Mrs. Mauro stated that her husband had a history of mental illness and also revealed accounts of child abuse. After her questioning she asked to speak with her husband. Detective Manson spoke to Detective Allen and shared that he was against allowing them speak. Allen allowed the visit to take place, but advised that Manson be present for security purposes and tape-record the conversation, since at that point they did not know if the homicide was jointly committed. Both detectives were aware that the possibility of Mr. Mauro making incriminating statements was likely. During the visit between Mauro and his wife, he told his wife “Don't answer questions until you get rights of attorney before you find out what’s going on. You tried to stop me as best you can. What are you going to do, kill me? You tried the best you can to stop me.” he also said “There's a public attorney. Why don't you just be quiet.” After that Detective Manson ended the meeting.
According to the case brief, “An autopsy of David's body revealed that he had died of asphyxiation. Although he was seven years old, David weighed only 38 pounds and was 46.2 inches tall. He had numerous bruises and abrasions over his body, some of which were recent. Additionally, marks on his ankles were consistent with having been bound, and he showed signs of malnutrition. Finally, the *27 wounds on David's body indicated a struggle shortly before death, including strong resistance to the sock being placed in his mouth.” At his trial, Mauro raised the defense of insanity. In the prosecution's rebuttal the recording was played and stated that he was sane on the day of the murder, demonstrated by the conversation with his wife. He was convicted of first-degree murder, various counts of child abuse and was initially sentenced to death.
Mauro appealed his sentence attempted to have the tape-recording dismissed, claiming it was a violation of his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination because the meeting with his wife was part of an unlawful interrogation, as it was contrived with the intention of obtaining useful information against him. Both Detective Allen, and Detective Manson testifies at the trial and admittedly stated that they were mindful of the fact that in allowing the meeting to take place with Detective Manson he would overhear possibly incriminating conversation and that was part of the purpose of recording the conversation between Mr. and Mrs. Mauro. But because Mauro had been previously Mirandized; once at the scene where he freely admitted to killing his son, whom he had suspected was the devil, and a second time at the station, thus the conversation Detective Manson lawfully overheard. Furthermore, it was not only voluntary, with the tape-recorder in plain view but also the request was made by his spouse, Mrs. Mauro. During that recording when advising his wife to not speak until she had been appointed a public attorney, Detective Manson ceased the conversation. Within the Miranda Rule, there was no interrogation of Mauro, as he was aware of his right not to speak and in doing so he could potentially produce admission evidence that would incriminate himself.
After appealing his case twice, the court’s final decision ruled that the recorded conversation between William Mauro and his wife, Linda Mauro was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court held, stating “Officers do not interrogate a suspect simply by hoping that he will incriminate himself. In Miranda, and again in Innis, the Court emphasized:
"Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. . . . Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., at 478 , quoted in Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, at 299-300.”
In direct relation to William Mauro’s appeal case, I feel that the ruling was justified as no violation occurred.

However, in regards to his original murder case, given Mauro’s previous record of mental health issues that were are discussed in his original case, there was obvious evidence of mental illness. He spent a significant time in and out of mental institutes, he was also diagnosed as manic depressive (bipolar disorder) in the 1970’s. Regardless of any of these records at no point did the state intervene in the prevention of neglect or abuse for the safety of his children. I do believe it is possible that he experienced an episode of insanity the morning he brutally murdered his son David. I feel that his sentence was fair, but I also feel that the population with mental illness is relevant to these types of crimes and is not properly

addressed.