OK, I have to say I am surprised by this decision. The CCA holds that a person in jail on one crime is not necessarily in custody for the purpose of triggering Miranda warnings before being questioned on another crime. Read it here.

What do you think? Is this one going to the SCOTUS?

This guy's situation is distinguished from all that other federal caselaw cited.

Everyone here: the suspect, the police, and the investigator... they all knew that the warrant wasn't the real reason Herrera was in jail.

They all knew it was really because of the stabbing. Why not just be honest about it?

When law enforcement Mirandized Herrera on the outstanding warrant they could have included the suspected assault:
You are under arrest for (1) an outstanding warrant AND (2) because we think you stabbed somebody. Now let me tell you about your rights ...

Having tried the case, I can tell you the cops had no idea what had happened at the beer joint. They suspected Herrera but didn't have enough to arrest based on conflicting statements from the "witnesses."

Oh that makes sense. Still it seems like Herrera should have known his rights... having just recently been informed and all.

It's an interesting concept, saying the defendant is not in custody for Miranda purposes while in county jail. Of course, if the defendant is free to tell the police he doesn't want to talk and go back to his jail cell, then I suppose one could say he was "free to leave."

A couple of thoughts, purely in the abstract . . .

Police don't have to tell a defendant why he is under arrest under Miranda . . .

I agree with JB that this is ripe for review, and suggest that people be very cautious . . .

In teaching confession issues, I generally encourage a very legally conservative approach. I would advise officers who interview someone at the jail to provide Miranda warnings (because it ain't gonna be easy to convince a judge the defendant was not in custody).

Another possibility, if you choose to take the noncustodial approach, is to make the issue clear for a judge by providing anti-Miranda warnings:

1. You are not in custody for the purpose of this interview.

2. You may refuse to cooperate with this interview at any time and return to your jail cell.

3. Do you understand your rights?

[This message was edited by JB on 11-22-07 at .]

I'm confused now.

How could a guy in jail be 'free' to walk back to his jail cell if he did not want to talk to the police? The police / jailers are the ones who control where the guy can go or not go. they have the keys to the cell doors.

Plus there is the inherent fear of retaliation against the inmate by the police or jailers if he / she does not 'cooperate.'

Jail is jail and if you are in there on one charge, but are being questioned on another, you are still in 'custody'.

The safest bet is to always give Miranda when in doubt.

Interesting point you make regarding retaliation from the jailor...

Unlike a free citizen, a jail inmate lives in a constant state of extreme coercion by the State.

If an inmate is deemed subjectively uncooperative, his experience can go from bad to worse. I'm thinking denial of trustee status, poor choice of cellmate, and a lot worse...

The warnings may bolster the credibility of an inmate's statement, since coerced testimony is generally accepted as less reliable.