Draft:North Carolina v. Butler

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 US 369 (1979) is a landmark decision of Supreme Court of the United States held that defendant's self-incriminating testimony is not inadmissible when there is no express waiver of Miranda rights. The court held that Miranda rights are not required to adopt a flexible per se rule. 10 of 11 the United States courts of appeals ruled that express waiver is not necessary.

The court added that the question of waiver must be determined according to particular facts and circumstances of the case. The court also criticized the Supreme Court of North Carolina for going beyond of the requirements of the federal organic law by creating a "flexible rule" that has no implicit waiver can ever suffice. The court concluded that a state court can neither add or subtract from the mandate of the Constitution of the United States.

Background
In December 1976, Willie Thomas Butler and his companion, Elmer Lee robbed a gas station in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Butler shot a station attendee, cause him to become paralyzed, as they were trying to escape. Both the men fled to The Bronx, New York when they got arrested by the FBI agents on a basis of a fugitive warrant. After his arrest, the agents took Butler into FBI office in New Rochelle, New York. During interrogation, the officer gave him the "Advice of Rights" to signify that the respondent understood his rights. Butler refused to sign the waiver, Butler also told the officer that he will not sign any waiver but he would like to talk to the officer. Butler didn't ask for attorney and proceeded to make self-incriminating statements which was used as evidence at the trial. At the trial, Butler moved to supress the evidence but the court denied the motion, arguing that Butler had effectively waived his rights to an attorny when he spoke to the FBI agent after saying that he understood his rights. The jury found him guilty of kidnapping, armed robbery, and felonious assault. Butler appealed his case to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The court reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered a new trial, holding that statements that made under interrogations were inadmissible without an express waiver of rights.