Can someone give me a short summary of how Miranda rights applied to Chris after he raped his Mom? I don't feel like searching the thread.
What do you mean, specifally? Miranda applies post-arrest only, and it means that if you
affirmatively and unambiguously assert your rights
post-arrest, then your testimonial statements made
in answer to questions posed by LE during
in-custody interrogation may not be admissible at a
criminal trial*
on that offense if you clearly invoked your rights.
*evidence obtained as a result of statements made in violation of or outside Miranda applicability is typically admissible. Also, it's not absolute, so if you clearly assert your right to be silent, then interrogation continues, and you open your mouth, too bad. Assertion of right to counsel (6th Am) is different.
To get your statements excluded for Miranda reasons, you have to move for it and show the situation meets the requirements (essentially the underlined items above). If you prevail, it means your statement can't be offered at your trial as proof of guilt, but it can be used to impeach you/your later testimony and as noted there's no fruit of the poisoned tree issue for other evidence, typically.
Also, generally speaking - Spontaneous statements aren't typically covered. Statements made pre-arrest or outside of custodial interrogation aren't typically covered. It typically applies case by case, not person by person.
Eta - waiver of Miranda requires you understood and spoke voluntarily. Off the top of my head, idk what's been litigated about "understood", but I guess I'd be surprised if it were a lower standard than the level of competence required to stand trial (different context so the legal standard wouldn't be exactly the same, but basically the bar is probably very low). Barring a psychotic episode or an overall incompetence, likely that's not an out.
