During a burglary trial, the defendant objects that Miranda warnings were not given and requests a voir dire hearing outside the presence of the jury to resolve this issue. How should the court proceed?

• A. The court should grant the request and conduct the hearing outside the jury.
• B. The court should deny the request and hear the issue in front of the jury.
• C. The court should grant the request but with the jury present.
• D. The court should postpone the trial.

Answer: (A)

Resolving Miranda-related issues is a matter of admissibility, not guilt or innocence, and should be decided before the main trial. When a defendant contends that Miranda warnings were not given, the court typically holds a suppression (or evidentiary) hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether any statements were obtained in violation and should be excluded. The key idea is to determine the admissibility of the statements first, without exposing the jury to potentially prejudicial topics about custodial interrogation or lack of warnings. If the court finds the warnings were not given properly and no valid waiver occurred, the statements are suppressed; if they were given and waived properly, they may be admitted. This procedure keeps the trial fair and prevents the jury from hearing about unconstitutional interrogation techniques unless the statements are actually admissible. Hence the court should grant the request and conduct the hearing outside the jury.