The Inquisitor Reva captured, shackled, and transported Princess Leia of Alderaan from Mapuzo to Nur. Could any information learned from a custodial interrogation of the 10-year old Princess be admissible in court?
Federal law requires that when a juvenile is arrested, the arresting officer “shall immediately” tell the child of their legal rights in language they can understand AND immediately tell the juvenile’s parents, guardian, or custodian, that the child was taken into custody. 18 U.S.C. § 5033.
The “rights” that 18 U.S.C. § 5033 include Miranda. The Miranda opinion was the result of a long line of cases that bars the government from using the statements of a defendant made during a custodial interrogation, to prove the case against the defendant, provided the statements were made before the defendant was told of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney. See, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, at 444 (1966). The goal of this “exclusionary rule” is to prevent unlawful police conduct.
The Miranda Court specifically held:
Accordingly we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.
Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 471-472 (U.S. 1966).
Assuming the Galactic Empire has similar laws to 18 U.S.C. § 5033, Leia’s parents clearly had not been notified of Leia’s arrest. Considering that Reva had Leia kidnapped in the first place, it is unlikely Reva is going to start following child protection laws at this point in the story. It is also a safe bet no Miranda rights were given to Leia. As such, nothing learned from interrogating Leia would be admissible in court.
Given the facts that Leia was both in shackles, in an interrogation room, had been transported from one planet to another, it is clear she is being detained. The scene begins with her [rightly] throwing down she was royalty and her father a Senator. Reva’s response to Leia’s “Don’t You Know Who I am” defense was that she had no rights on Nur as a Jedi sympathizer.
Children in custody have Miranda rights just as adults do to protect against self-incrimination and vindicate their right to counsel. Children can waive Miranda rights, but there are specific factors to evaluate. In a denial of a petition to the California Supreme Court, the rules for child waivers are spelled out. The case involved a 10-year old boy who shot and killed his sleeping father. The child was questioned by police, in the living room, with his step-mother present. The questioning was recorded on video.
In order for a Miranda waiver to be valid, it must be “made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” The waiver must be made “with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” In re Joseph H., 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. 2015), citing Moran v. Burbine 475 U.S. 412, 421, (1986).
The following considerations must be given to a juvenile’s waiver: age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and “whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.’ ” In re Joseph H., at *2, citing People v. Nelson 53 Cal.4th 367, 375 (2012).
As Princess Leia is 10 going on 30, she had the intellect and maturity to understand her rights. This is evident from the Princess telling her captor she would tell them nothing, which was within Princess Leia’s right to remain silent.
Reva deciding to torture Leia is a very big Constitutional no-no.
