document_title: Miranda warning

question_text: when must a suspect be read their miranda rights

question_tokens: when must a suspect be read their miranda rights

root

text: Miranda warning

text: Origin and development of Miranda rights[edit]

text: The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a mentally handicapped young woman (Miranda was subsequently retried and convicted, based primarily on his estranged ex-partner, who had been tracked down by the original arresting officer via Miranda's own parents, suddenly claiming that Miranda had confessed to her when she had visited him in jail; Miranda's lawyer later confessed that he 'goofed' the trial[1]).

tag: p

text: The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards, i.e. Miranda rights, are "custody" and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of his/her rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:

text: ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he/she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he/she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he/she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him/her.

text: In Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), the Supreme Court decided that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for which he was arrested.[2]

text: As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "read the Miranda rights to" a suspect (when the suspect is arrested).[3]

text: Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed (California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)[4]).

text: In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Supreme Court held that unless a suspect expressly states that he or she is invoking this right, subsequent voluntary statements made to an officer can be used against them in court, and police can continue to interact with (or question) the alleged criminal.

text: The warnings[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:[5]

text:
You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

tag: ul

text: The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he/she understands their rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver, but on June 1, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that police are allowed to interrogate suspects who have invoked or waived their rights ambiguously, and any statement given during questioning prior to invocation or waiving is admissible as evidence.[6] Evidence has in some cases been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.[7]

text: While the exact language above is not required by Miranda, the police must advise the suspect that:

text:
they have the right to remain silent;
anything the suspect does say can and may be used against them in a court of law;
they have the right to have an attorney present before and during the questioning; and
they have the right, if they cannot afford the services of an attorney, to have one appointed, at public expense and without cost to them, to represent them before and during the questioning.[8]

tag: ol

text: There is no precise language that must be used in advising a suspect of their Miranda rights.[9] The point is that whatever language is used the substance of the rights outlined above must be communicated to the suspect.[10] The suspect may be advised of their rights orally or in writing.[11] Also, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying, taking into account potential education levels. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.

text: The Supreme Court has resisted efforts to require officers to more fully advise suspects of their rights. For example, the police are not required to advise the suspect that they can stop the interrogation at any time, that the decision to exercise the right cannot be used against the suspect, or that they have a right to talk to a lawyer before being asked any questions. Nor have the courts required to explain the rights. For example, the standard Miranda right to counsel states You have a right to have an attorney present during the questioning. Police are not required to explain that this right is not merely a right to have a lawyer present while the suspect is being questioned. The right to counsel includes:

text:
the right to talk to a lawyer before deciding whether to talk to police,
if the defendant decides to talk to the police, the right to consult with a lawyer before being interrogated,
the right to answer police only through an attorney.[12]

text: Circumstances triggering the Miranda requisites[edit]

text: The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards, i.e. Miranda warnings, are "custody" and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Suspects in "custody" who are about to be interrogated must be properly advised of their Miranda rights—namely, the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination (and, in furtherance of this right, the right to counsel while in custody). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel means that the suspect has the right to consult with an attorney before questioning begins and have an attorney present during the interrogation. The Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination is the right to remain silent—the right to refuse to answer questions or to otherwise communicate information.

text: The duty to warn only arises when police officers conduct custodial interrogations. The Constitution does not require that a defendant be advised of the Miranda rights as part of the arrest procedure, or once an officer has probable cause to arrest, or if the defendant has become a suspect of the focus of an investigation. Custody and interrogation are the events that trigger the duty to warn.

text: Use in various U.S. state jurisdictions[edit]

text: Some jurisdictions provide the right of a juvenile to remain silent if their parent or guardian is not present. Some departments in New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska modify the "providing an attorney" clause as follows:

text: We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.

text: Even though this sentence may be somewhat ambiguous to some laypersons, who can, and who have actually interpreted it as meaning that they will not get a lawyer until they confess and are arraigned in court, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states.[13]

text: In states bordering Mexico, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, suspects who are not United States citizens are given an additional warning:[14][15][16][17][18][19]

text: If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning.

text: Some states including Virginia require the following sentence, ensuring that the suspect knows that waiving Miranda rights is not a one-time absolute occurrence:[17][18][19][20]

text: You can decide at any time from this moment on to terminate the interview and exercise these rights.

text: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Pennsylvania also add the following questions, presumably to comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations:[17][18][19]

text: Question 1: Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you?

text: Question 2: Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?

text: An affirmative answer to both of the above questions waives the rights. If the suspect responds "no" to the first question, the officer is required to re-read the Miranda warning, while saying "no" to the second question invokes the right at that moment; in either case the interviewing officer or officers cannot question the suspect until the rights are waived.

text: Generally, when defendants invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify or submit to cross-examination at trial, the prosecutor cannot indirectly punish them for the exercise of a constitutional right by commenting on their silence and insinuating that it is an implicit admission of guilt.[21] Since Miranda rights are simply a judicial gloss upon the Fifth Amendment which protects against coercive interrogations, the same rule also prevents prosecutors from commenting about the post-arrest silence of suspects who invoke their Miranda rights immediately after arrest.[22] However, neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda extend to pre-arrest silence, which means that if a defendant takes the witness stand at trial (meaning he just waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent), the prosecutor can attack his credibility with his pre-arrest silence (based on his failure to immediately turn himself in and confess to the things he voluntarily testified about at trial).[23]

text: Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 31[24] provides for the right against compelled self-incrimination. Interrogation subjects under Army jurisdiction must first be given Department of the Army Form 3881, which informs them of the charges and their rights, and the subjects must sign the form. The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps require that all arrested personnel be read the "rights of the accused" and must sign a form waiving those rights if they so desire; a verbal waiver is not sufficient.

text: It has been discussed[by whom?] whether a Miranda warning—if spoken or in writing—could be appropriately given to disabled persons. For example, "the right to remain silent" means little to a deaf individual and the word "constitutional" may not be understood by people with only an elementary education. In one case, a deaf murder suspect was kept at a therapy station until he was able to understand the meaning of the Miranda warning and other judicial proceedings.[25]

text: The six rules[edit]

text: The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. The Miranda right to counsel and right to remain silent are derived from the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.[26] Therefore, for Miranda to apply, six requirements must be fulfilled:

text: Application of the prerequisites[edit]

text: Assuming that the six requirements are present and Miranda applies, the statement will be subject to suppression unless the prosecution can demonstrate:

text: that the suspect was advised of their Miranda rights

text: and

text: that the suspect voluntarily waived those rights or that the circumstances fit an exception to the Miranda rule.

text: The defendant may also be able to challenge the admissibility of the statement under provisions of state constitutions and state criminal procedure statutes.[50]

text: It is important to note that immigrants who live in the United States illegally are also protected and should receive their Miranda warnings as well when being interrogated or placed under arrest. "Aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and [have] developed substantial connections with this country".[51]

text: The Fifth Amendment right to counsel, a component of the Miranda Rule, is different from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In the context of the law of confessions the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is defined by the Massiah Doctrine (Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)).

text: Waiver[edit]

text: Simply advising the suspect of their rights does not fully comply with the Miranda rule. The suspect must also voluntarily waive their Miranda rights before questioning can proceed.[52] An express waiver is not necessary.[53] However, most law enforcement agencies use written waiver forms. These include questions designed to establish that the suspect expressly waived their rights. Typical waiver questions are

text: "Do you understand each of these rights?"

text: and

text: "Understanding each of these rights, do you now wish to speak to the police without a lawyer being present?"

text: The waiver must be "knowing and intelligent" and it must be "voluntary". These are separate requirements. To satisfy the first requirement the state must show that the suspect generally understood their rights (right to remain silent and right to counsel) and the consequences of forgoing those rights (that anything they said could be used against them in court). To show that the waiver was "voluntary" the state must show that the decision to waive the rights was not the product of police coercion. If police coercion is shown or evident, then the court proceeds to determine the voluntariness of the waiver under the totality of circumstances test focusing on the personal characteristics of the accused and the particulars of the coercive nature of the police conduct. The ultimate issue is whether the coercive police conduct was sufficient to overcome the will of a person under the totality of the circumstances. As noted previously, courts traditionally focused on two categories of factors in making this determination: (1) the personal characteristics of the suspect and (2) the circumstances attendant to the waiver. However, the Supreme Court significantly altered the voluntariness standard in the case of Colorado v. Connelly.[54] In Connelly, the Court held that "Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession is not 'voluntary' within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."[55] The Court has applied this same standard of voluntariness in determining whether a waiver of a suspect's Fifth Amendment Miranda rights was voluntary. Thus, a waiver of Miranda rights is voluntary unless the defendant can show that their decision to waive their rights and speak to the police was the product of police misconduct and coercion that overcame the defendant's free will. After Connelly, the traditional totality of circumstances analysis is not even reached unless the defendant can first show such coercion by the police.[56] Under Connelly, a suspect's decisions need not be the product of rational deliberations.[57] In addition to showing that the waiver was "voluntary", the prosecution must also show that the waiver was "knowing" and "intelligent". Essentially this means the prosecution must prove that the suspect had a basic understanding of their rights and an appreciation of the consequences of forgoing those rights. The focus of the analysis is directly on the personal characteristics of the suspect. If the suspect was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or suffered from an emotional or mental condition that substantially impaired their capacity to make rational decisions, the courts may well decide that the suspect's waiver was not knowing and intelligent.

text: A waiver must also be clear and unequivocal. An equivocal statement is ineffective as a waiver and the police may not proceed with the interrogation until the suspect's intentions are made clear. The requirement that a waiver be unequivocal must be distinguished from situations in which the suspect made an equivocal assertion of their Miranda rights after the interrogation began. Any post-waiver assertion of a suspect's Miranda rights must be clear and unequivocal.[58] Any ambiguity or equivocation will be ineffective. If the suspect's assertion is ambiguous, the interrogating officers are permitted to ask questions to clarify the suspect's intentions, although they are not required to.[59] In other words, if a suspect's assertion is ambiguous, the police may either attempt to clarify the suspect's intentions or they may simply ignore the ineffective assertion and continue with the interrogation.[59] The timing of the assertion is significant. Requesting an attorney prior to arrest is of no consequence because Miranda applies only to custodial interrogations. The police may simply ignore the request and continue with the questioning; however, the suspect is also free to leave.

text: Assertion[edit]

text: If the defendant asserts his right to remain silent all interrogation must immediately stop and the police may not resume the interrogation unless the police have "scrupulously honored" the defendant's assertion and obtain a valid waiver before resuming the interrogation.[60] In determining whether the police "scrupulously honored" the assertion the courts apply a totality of the circumstances test. The most important factors are the length of time between termination of original interrogation and commencement of the second and a fresh set of Miranda warnings before resumption of interrogation.

text: The consequences of assertion of Sixth Amendment right to counsel are stricter.[61] The police must immediately cease all interrogation and the police cannot reinitiate interrogation unless counsel is present (merely consulting with counsel is insufficient) or the defendant of his own volition contacts the police.[62] If the defendant does reinitiate contact, a valid waiver must be obtained before interrogation may resume.

text: In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Supreme Court declared in a 5–4 decision that criminal defendants who have been read their Miranda rights (and who have indicated they understand them and have not already waived them), must explicitly state during or before an interrogation begins that they wish to be silent and not speak to police for that protection against self-incrimination to apply. If they speak to police about the incident before invoking the Miranda right to remain silent, or afterwards at any point during the interrogation or detention, the words they speak may be used against them if they have not stated they do not want to speak to police. Those who oppose the ruling contend that the requirement that the defendant must speak to indicate his intention to remain silent further erodes the ability of the defendant to stay completely silent about the case. This opposition must be put in context with the second option offered by the majority opinion, which allowed that the defendant had the option of remaining silent, saying: "Had he wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response or unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights, ending the interrogation." Thus, having been "Mirandized", a suspect may avow explicitly the invocation of these rights, or, alternatively, simply remain silent. Absent the former, "anything [said] can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law".

text: Exceptions[edit]

text: Assuming that the six factors are present, the Miranda rule would apply unless the prosecution can establish that the statement falls within an exception to the Miranda rule.[63] The three exceptions are:

text:
the routine booking question exception[64]
the jail house informant exception and
the public safety exception.[65]

text: Arguably only the last is a true exception—the first two can better be viewed as consistent with the Miranda factors. For example, questions that are routinely asked as part of the administrative process of arrest and custodial commitment are not considered "interrogation" under Miranda because they are not intended or likely to produce incriminating responses. Nonetheless, all three circumstances are treated as exceptions to the rule. The jail house informant exception applies to situations where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a state-agent; either a police officer posing as a fellow inmate, a cellmate working as an agent for the state or a family member or friend who has agreed to cooperate with the state in obtaining incriminating information.[66]

text: Public safety exception[edit]

text: The "public safety" exception is a limited and case-specific exception, allowing certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety; thus, the Miranda rule provides some elasticity.[67]

text: The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles (1984), a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place during the middle of the night in a supermarket that was open to the public but apparently deserted except for the clerks at the checkout counter. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because "[i]n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer".[68] Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda".

text: Under this exception, to be admissible in the government's direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist", and must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety".[69]

text: In 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation encouraged agents to use a broad interpretation of public safety-related questions in terrorism cases, stating that the "magnitude and complexity" of terrorist threats justified "a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case", continuing to list such examples as: "questions about possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by weapons that might pose an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks". A Department of Justice spokesman described this position as not altering the constitutional right, but as clarifying existing flexibility in the rule.[70]

text: Prosecutors initially argued for this exception to be applied[71] to the 16-hour interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in connection with the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings.[72] However, the exception was not considered by the court because the prosecutors later decided not to use any of that evidence in their case against Tsarnaev.[73]

text: The New York Court of Appeals upheld the exception in a 2013 murder case, People v Doll,[74] where a man with blood on his clothes was detained and questioned.[75]

text: The window of opportunity for the exception is small. Once the suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would attach and surreptitious interrogation would be prohibited.[76] The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency.[77]

text: Consequences of violation[edit]

text: Assuming that a Miranda violation occurred—the six factors are present and no exception applies—the statement will be subject to suppression under the Miranda exclusionary rule.[78] That is, if the defendant objects or files a motion to suppress, the exclusionary rule would prohibit the prosecution from offering the statement as proof of guilt. However, the statement can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony.[79] Further, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to Miranda violations.[80] Therefore, the exclusionary rule exceptions, attenuation, independent source and inevitable discovery, do not come into play, and derivative evidence would be fully admissible. For example, suppose the police continue with a custodial interrogation after the suspect has asserted his right to silence. During his post-assertion statement the suspect tells the police the location of the gun he used in the murder. Using this information the police find the gun. Forensic testing identifies the gun as the murder weapon, and fingerprints lifted from the gun match the suspect's. The contents of the Miranda-defective statement could not be offered by the prosecution as substantive evidence, but the gun itself and all related forensic evidence could be used as evidence at trial.

text: Procedural requirements[edit]

text: Although the rules vary by jurisdiction, generally a person who wishes to contest the admissibility of evidence[81] on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights[82] must comply with the following procedural requirements:

text:
The defendant must file a motion.[83]
The motion must be in writing.[84]
The motion must be filed before trial.[85]
The motion must allege the factual and legal grounds on which the defendant seeks suppression of evidence.[86]
The motion must be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence.[87]
The motion must be served on the state.[83]

text: Failure to comply with a procedural requirement may result in summary dismissal of the motion.[83] If the defendant meets the procedural requirement, the motion will normally be considered by the judge outside the presence of the jury. The judge hears evidence, determines the facts, makes conclusions of law and enters an order allowing or denying the motion.[88]

text: Related doctrines[edit]

text: In addition to Miranda, confession may be challenged under the Massiah Doctrine, the Voluntariness Standard, Provisions of Federal and State rules of criminal procedure and State Constitutional provisions.

text: Massiah Doctrine[edit]

text: The Massiah Doctrine (established by Massiah v. United States) prohibits the admission of a confession obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Specifically, the Massiah rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings deliberately elicited by the police from a defendant after formal charges have been filed. The events that trigger the Sixth Amendment safeguards under Massiah are (1) the commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings and (2) deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents.

text: The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions. The purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial and to assure that the adversarial system of justice functions properly by providing competent counsel as an advocate for the defendant in his contest against the "prosecutorial forces" of the state.

text: Commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings[edit]

text: The Sixth Amendment right "attaches" once the government has committed itself to the prosecution of the case by the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings "by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment".[89] Determining whether a particular event or proceeding constitutes the commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings requires both an examination of the rules of criminal procedure for the jurisdiction in which the crime is charged and the Supreme Courts cases dealing with the issue of when formal prosecution begins.[90] Once adversarial criminal proceedings commence the right to counsel applies to all critical stages of the prosecution and investigation. A critical stage is "any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel's absence might derogate from the accused's right to a fair trial".[91]

text: Government attempts to obtain incriminating statement related to the offense charged from the defendant by overt interrogation or surreptitious means is a critical stage and any information thus obtained is subject to suppression unless the government can show that an attorney was present or the defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel.[92]

text: Deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents[edit]

text: Deliberate elicitation is defined as the intentional creation of circumstances by government agents that are likely to produce incriminating information from the defendant.[93] Clearly express questioning (interrogation) would qualify but the concept also extends to surreptitious attempts to acquire information from the defendant through the use of undercover agents or paid informants.[94]

text: The definition of "deliberate elicitation" is not the same as the definition of "interrogation" under the Miranda rule. Miranda interrogation includes express questioning and any actions or statements that an officer would reasonably foresee as likely to cause an incriminating response. Massiah applies to express questioning and any attempt to deliberately and intentionally obtain incriminating information from the defendant regarding the crime charged. The difference is purposeful creation of an environment likely to produce incriminating information (Massiah) and action likely to induce an incriminating response even if that was not the officer's purpose or intent (Miranda).

text: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific – the right only applies to post-commencement attempts to obtain information relating to the crime charged.[95] The right does not extend to uncharged offenses if factually related to the charged crime.[96]

text: As noted, information obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is subject to suppression unless the government can establish that the defendant waived his right to counsel. The waiver must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary.[97] A valid Miranda waiver operates as a waiver of Sixth Amendment right.

text: Miranda and Massiah compared[edit]

text:
Constitutional basis:
Miranda is based on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Massiah is based on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Attachment:
Miranda: Custody + interrogation (charging status irrelevant).
Massiah: Formally charged + deliberate elicitation (custodial status irrelevant).
Scope:
a. Miranda applies to custodial interrogation by known governmental agents. Surreptitious acquisition of incriminating information allowed.
a. Massiah applies to overt and surreptitious interrogation.
b. Miranda is not offense specific.[98]
b. Massiah is offense specific.[99]
c. Miranda: interrogation + "functional equivalent"
c. Massiah: interrogation + "deliberate elicitation"
Waiver: Both Miranda and Massiah rights may be waived.
Assertion: In each case, the assertion must be clear and unequivocal. The effects of assertion are not identical. For purposes of Miranda, the police must immediately cease the interrogation and cannot resume interrogating the defendant about any offense charged or uncharged unless counsel is present or defendant initiates contact for purposes of resuming interrogation and valid waiver obtained. Because Massiah is offense-specific, an assertion of the sixth amendment right to counsel requires the police to cease interrogating the defendant about any charged offense. Apparently the police could continue questioning the defendant about uncharged crimes assuming that the defendant was not in custody. The defendant's remedy would be to leave or to refuse to answer questions.[100]
Remedy for violation: The remedy for violation of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel is identical: the statements and testimonial information are subject to suppression. Derivative evidence is not subject to suppression under Miranda – fruit of poisonous tree doctrine may apply to Massiah violation.[101] Both Miranda and Massiah defective statements can be used for impeachment purposes.
Exceptions: The primary exceptions to Miranda are (1) the routine booking questions exception (2) the jail house informant exception and (3) the public safety exception. In Moulton v. Maine the Supreme Court refused to recognize a public safety exception to the Massiah rule.[102] Massiah allows for the use of jail house informants provided the informants serve merely as "passive listeners".[103]

text: The voluntariness standard[edit]

text: The voluntariness standard applies to all police interrogations regardless of the custodial status of the suspect and regardless of whether the suspect has been formally charged. The remedy for a violation of the standard is complete suppression of the statement and any evidence derived from the statement. The statement cannot be used as either substantive evidence of guilt or to impeach the defendant's testimony.[104] The reason for the strictness is the common law's aversion to the use of coerced confessions because of their inherent unreliability. Further the rights to be free from coerced confession cannot be waived nor is it necessary that the victim of coercive police conduct assert his right. In considering the voluntariness standard one must consider the Supreme Court's decision in Colorado v. Connelly.[105] Although federal courts' application of the Connelly rule has been inconsistent and state courts have often failed to appreciate the consequences of the case, Connelly clearly marked a significant change in the application of the voluntariness standard. Before Connelly the test was whether the confession was voluntary considering the totality of the circumstances.[106] "Voluntary" carried its everyday meaning: the confession had to be a product of the exercise of the defendant's free will rather than police coercion.[107] After Connelly the totality of circumstances test is not even triggered unless the defendant can show coercive police conduct.[108] Questions of free will and rational decision making are irrelevant to a due process claim unless police misconduct existed and a causal connection can be shown between the misconduct and the confession.[109]

text: State constitutional challenges[edit]

text: Every state constitution has articles and provision guaranteeing individual rights.[110] In most cases the subject matter is similar to the federal bill of rights.[111] Most state courts interpretation of their constitution is consistent with the interpretation federal court's of analogous provisions of the federal constitution. With regard to Miranda issues, state courts have exhibited significant resistance to incorporating into their state jurisprudence some of the limitations on the Miranda rule that have been created by the federal courts.[112] As a consequence a defendant may be able to circumvent the federal limitation on the Miranda rule and successfully challenge the admissibility under state constitutional provisions. Practically every aspect of the Miranda rule has drawn state court criticism. However the primary point of contention involve the following limitations on the scope of the Miranda rule: (1) the Harris exception[113] (2) the Burbine rule[114] and (3) the Fare rule.[115]

text: State statutory challenges[edit]

text: In addition to constitutionally based challenge, states permit a defendant to challenge the admissibility of a confession on the grounds that the confession was obtained in violation of a defendant's statutory rights. For example, North Carolina Criminal Procedure Act permits a defendant to move to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a "substantial" violation of the provision of the North Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure.

text: Confusion regarding use[edit]

text: Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure—in the 2000 Dickerson decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture".[116]

text: While arrests and interrogations can legally occur without the Miranda warning being given, this procedure would generally make the arrestee's pre-Miranda statements inadmissible at trial. (However, pursuant to the plurality opinion in United States v. Patane, physical evidence obtained as a result of pre-Miranda statements may still be admitted.  There was no majority opinion of the Court in that case.)

text: In some jurisdictions,[where?] a detention differs at law from an arrest, and police are not required to give the Miranda warning until the person is arrested for a crime. In those situations, a person's statements made to police are generally admissible even though the person was not advised of their rights. Similarly, statements made while an arrest is in progress before the Miranda warning was given or completed are also generally admissible.

text: Because Miranda applies only to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions such as name and address. Because it is a protective measure intended to safeguard the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, it does not prevent the police from taking blood without a warrant from persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. (Such evidence may be self-incriminatory, but are not considered statements of self-incrimination.)

text: If an inmate is in jail and invoked Miranda on one case, it is unclear whether this extends to any other cases that they may be charged with while in custody. For example: a subject is arrested, charged with cattle rustling, and is held in county jail awaiting trial. He invoked his Miranda rights on the cow case. While in custody, he is involved in a fight where a staff member loses his ability to walk. He speaks to the custodial staff regarding the fight without staff first invoking Miranda. It is unclear if this statement is admissible because of the original Miranda statement.

text: Many police departments give special training to interrogators with regard to the Miranda warning; specifically, how to influence a suspect's decision to waive the right. For instance, the officer may be required to specifically ask if the rights are understood and if the suspect wishes to talk. The officer is allowed, before asking the suspect a question, to speak at length about evidence collected, witness statements, etc. The officer will then ask if the suspect wishes to talk, and the suspect is then more likely to talk in an attempt to refute the evidence presented. Another tactic commonly taught is never to ask a question; the officer may simply sit the suspect down in an interrogation room, sit across from him and do paperwork, and wait for the suspect to begin talking.[117] These tactics are intended to mitigate the restrictions placed on law officers against compelling a suspect to give evidence, and have stood up in court as valid lawful tactics. Nevertheless, such tactics are condemned by legal rights groups as deceptive.[citation needed]

text: Exemption for interrogations conducted by undercover agents[edit]

text: In Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that undercover officers do not have to give suspects a Miranda warning prior to asking questions that may elicit incriminating responses. In this case, an undercover agent posed as an inmate and carried on a 35-minute conversation with another inmate that he suspected of committing a murder that was being investigated. During this conversation, the suspect implicated himself in the murder that the undercover agent was investigating.[118]

text: The Supreme Court came to this conclusion despite the government's admission that a custodial interrogation had been conducted by a government agent.

text: Report of warnings being given to detainees in Afghanistan[edit]

text: Beginning in 2009, some detainees captured in Afghanistan have been read their Miranda rights by the FBI, according to Congressman Michael Rogers of Michigan, who claims to have witnessed this himself. According to the Justice Department, "There has been no policy change nor blanket instruction for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."[119][120]

text: Equivalent rights in other countries[edit]

text: Whether arising from their constitutions, common law, or statute, many nations recognize a defendant's right to silence.[121] Those rights may be considerably more limited than those available to U.S. criminal defendants under the Miranda ruling.[122]


document_title: Atlantis: The Lost Empire

question_text: when does atlantis the lost empire take place

text: Atlantis: The Lost Empire

text: Plot[edit]

text: Many centuries ago, a large tidal wave triggered by a distant explosion threatens to drown the island of Atlantis. In the midst of an evacuation from the capital city, the Queen of Atlantis is caught by a strange, hypnotic blue light and lifted up into the "Heart of Atlantis", a powerful crystal protecting the city. The crystal consumes her and creates a dome barrier that protects the city's innermost district. She leaves behind her young daughter, Princess Kida, as the island sinks beneath the ocean.

text: In 1914, Milo Thatch, a cartographer and linguist at the Smithsonian Institution who is marginalized for his research on Atlantis, believes that he has found The Shepherd's Journal, an ancient manuscript that contains directions to the lost island. After the museum board declines his proposal to search for the journal, a mysterious woman, Helga Sinclair, introduces Milo to Preston B. Whitmore, an eccentric millionaire. Whitmore has already funded a successful effort to retrieve the journal as repayment of a debt to Milo's grandfather, recruiting Milo to lead an expedition to Atlantis, as soon as he receives it.

text: The expedition departs with a team of specialists led by Commander Lyle Rourke, who also led the journal recovery expedition. The crew includes Vinny Santorini, a demolitions expert; Gaetan "Mole" Molière, a geologist; Dr. Joshua Sweet, a medical officer; Audrey Ramirez, a mechanic; Mrs. Wilhelmina Packard, a radio operator; and Cookie Farnsworth, a mess cook. They set out in the Ulysses, a massive submarine. During the journey, they are attacked by the monstrous Leviathan, a robotic lobster-like creature that guards Atlantis' entrance. The Ulysses is subsequently destroyed, but Milo, Rourke, and part of the crew escape by making their way to an underground cavern, described in the journal as the entrance to Atlantis.

text: After traveling through a network of caves and a dormant volcano, the team reaches the borders of Atlantis. They are greeted by Kida who resembles a young woman and discover that the Atlantean language is the basis of many existing languages. Kida enlists Milo's aid in deciphering the Atlantean written language, long forgotten by the natives. By swimming deep within the city's submerged ruins and translating underwater murals, Milo helps Kida uncover the nature of the Heart of Atlantis: it supplies the Atlanteans with power and longevity through the crystals worn around their necks. He is surprised this is not mentioned in the journal but recalls that a page is missing.

text: Returning to the surface with Kida, Milo discovers Rourke has the missing page. Rourke and the crew betray Milo, intending to bring the crystal to the surface and sell it. Rourke mortally wounds the King of Atlantis while trying to extract information about the crystal's location, but finds its location for himself hidden beneath the King's throne room. The crystal detects a threat before merging with Kida. Rourke and the mercenaries lock Kida in a crate and prepare to leave the city. Knowing that when the crystal is gone the Atlanteans will die, Milo berates his friends for betraying their consciences, and ultimately convinces them to leave Rourke and remain in Atlantis. The King explains to Milo that the crystal has developed a consciousness; it thrives on the collective emotions of the Atlanteans and provides power, protection, and longevity in return. It will find a royal host when Atlantis is in danger. He then reveals that the sinking of Atlantis was caused when he attempted to use it as a weapon of war. As he dies, he gives his crystal to Milo, telling him to save Atlantis and Kida. Encouraged by Sweet, Milo rallies the crew, and the Atlanteans to stop Rourke.

text: In the ensuing battle inside the volcano, Rourke, Helga and the other mercenaries are all killed. Milo and the others successfully fly the crystal back to the city, as the volcano erupts. With lava flowing towards the city, Kida (in her crystal form) rises into the air and creates a protective shield. The lava breaks away harmlessly, showing a restored Atlantis, and the crystal returns Kida to Milo. The surviving crew members return to the surface and promise to keep the discovery of Atlantis a secret. Having fallen in love with Kida, Milo stays behind to help her rebuild the lost empire.

text: Voice cast[edit]

text:
Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch, a linguist and cartographer at the Smithsonian who was recruited to decipher The Shepherd's Journal while directing an expedition to Atlantis. Kirk Wise, one of the directors, said that they chose Fox for the role because they felt he gave his character his own personality and made them more believable on screen. Fox said that voice acting was much easier than his past experience with live action because he did not have to worry about what he looked like in front of a camera while delivering his lines.[4] The directors mentioned that Fox was also offered a role for Titan A.E.; he allowed his son to choose which film he would work on, and he chose Atlantis.[5] Viewers have noted similarities between Milo and the film's language consultant, Marc Okrand, who developed the Atlantean language used in the film. Okrand stated that Milo's supervising animator, John Pomeroy, sketched him, claiming not to know how a linguist looked or acted.[6]
James Garner as Commander Lyle Tiberius Rourke, the leader of the band of mercenaries, for the Atlantean expedition. Wise chose Garner because of his previous experience with action films, especially war and Western films, and said the role "fits him like a glove". When asked if he would be interested in the role, Garner replied: "I'd do it in a heartbeat."[7]
Cree Summer as Kidagakash "Kida" Nedakh, the Princess of Atlantis. Kida's supervising animator, Randy Haycock, stated that Summer was very "intimidating" when he first met her; this influenced how he wanted Kida to look and act on screen when she meets Milo.[8] Natalie Strom provided dialogue for Kida as a young child.
Don Novello as Vincenzo "Vinny" Santorini, an Italian demolitions expert. Kirk Wise and Russ Edmonds, Vinny's supervising animator, noted Novello's unique ability to improvise dialogue. Edmonds recalled, "[Novello] would look at the sheet, and he would read the line that was written once, and he would never read it again! And we never used a written line, it was improvs, the whole movie."[9]
Phil Morris as Doctor Joshua Strongbear Sweet, a medic of African American and Native American descent. Sweet's supervising animator, Ron Husband, indicated that one of the challenges was animating Sweet in sync with Morris' rapid line delivery while keeping him believable. Morris stated that this character was extreme, with "no middle ground"; he mentioned, "When he was happy, he was really happy, and when he's solemn, he's real solemn."[10]
Claudia Christian as Lieutenant Helga Sinclair, Rourke's German second-in-command and lieutenant. Christian described her character as "sensual" and "striking". She was relieved when she finally saw what her character looked like, joking, "I'd hate to, you know, go through all this and find out my character is a toad."[11]
Jacqueline Obradors as Audrey Rocio Ramirez, a teenage Puerto Rican mechanic and the youngest member of the expedition. Obradors said her character made her "feel like a little kid again" and she always hoped her sessions would last longer.[12]
Florence Stanley as Wilhelmina Bertha Packard: an elderly, sarcastic, chain-smoking radio operator. Stanley felt that Packard was very "cynical" and "secure": "She does her job and when she is not busy she does anything she wants."[13]
David Ogden Stiers as Fenton Q. Harcourt, a board member of the Smithsonian Institution who dismisses Milo's belief in the existence of Atlantis. Stiers previously worked with Michael J. Fox in Doc Hollywood. He earlier voice-acted for Disney in Beauty and the Beast as Cogsworth, Pocahontas as Governor Ratcliffe, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame as the Archdeacon and would do so again in Lilo & Stitch as Jumba.
John Mahoney as Preston B. Whitmore, an eccentric millionaire who funds the expedition to Atlantis. Lloyd Bridges was originally cast and recorded as Whitmore, but he died before completing the film. Mahoney's zest and vigor led to Whitmore's personality being reworked for the film.[14] Mahoney stated that doing voice work was "freeing" and allowed him to be "big" and "outrageous" with his character.[15]
Jim Varney as Jebidiah Allardyce "Cookie" Farnsworth, a Western-style chuckwagon chef. Varney died of lung cancer in February 2000, before the production ended, and the film was dedicated to his memory. Producer Don Hahn was saddened that Varney never saw the finished film, but mentioned that he was shown clips of his character's performance during his site sessions and said, "He loved it." Shawn Keller, supervising animator for Cookie, stated, "It was kind of a sad fact that [Varney] knew that he was not going to be able to see this film before he passed away. He did a bang-up job doing the voice work, knowing the fact that he was never gonna see his last performance."[16]
Corey Burton as Gaëtan "Mole" Molière, a French geologist who acts like a mole. Burton mentioned that finding his performance as Mole was by allowing the character to "leap out" of him while making funny voices. To get into character during his recording sessions, he stated that he would "throw myself into the scene and feel like I'm in this make-believe world".[17]
Leonard Nimoy as Kashekim Nedakh, the King of Atlantis and Kida's father. Michael Cedeno, supervising animator for King Nedakh, was astounded at Nimoy's voice talent, stating that he had "so much rich character" in his performance. As he spoke his lines, Cadeno said the crew would sit there and watch Nimoy in astonishment.[18]

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: The idea for Atlantis: The Lost Empire was conceived in October 1996 when Don Hahn, Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise, and Tab Murphy lunched at a Mexican restaurant in Burbank, California. Having recently completed The Hunchback of Notre Dame[19] the producer and directors wanted to keep the Hunchback crew together for another film with an Adventureland setting.[20] Drawing inspiration from Jules Verne's A Journey to the Center of the Earth (1864), they set out to make a film which would fully explore Atlantis (compared to the brief visit depicted in Verne's novel).[21] While primarily utilizing the Internet to research the mythology of Atlantis,[22] the filmmakers became interested in the clairvoyant readings of Edgar Cayce and decided to incorporate some of his ideas—notably that of a mother-crystal which provides power, healing, and longevity to the Atlanteans—into the story.[23] They also visited museums and old army installations to study the technology of the early 20th century (the film's time period), and traveled 800 feet underground in New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns to view the subterranean trails which would serve as a model for the approach to Atlantis in the film.[24]

text: The filmmakers wanted to avoid the common depiction of Atlantis as "crumbled Greek columns underwater", said Wise.[25] "From the get-go, we were committed to designing it top to bottom. Let's get the architectural style, clothing, heritage, customs, how they would sleep, and how they would speak. So we brought people on board who would help us develop those ideas."[26] Art director David Goetz stated, "We looked at Mayan architecture, styles of ancient, unusual architecture from around the world, and the directors really liked the look of Southeast Asian architecture."[27] The team later took ideas from other architectural forms, including Cambodian, Indian, and Tibetan works.[28] Hahn added, "If you take and deconstruct architecture from around the world into one architectural vocabulary, that's what our Atlantis looks like."[29] The overall design and circular layout of Atlantis were also based on the writings of Plato,[28] and his quote "in a single day and night of misfortune, the island of Atlantis disappeared into the depths of the sea"[30] was influential from the beginning of production.[19] The crew wore T-shirts which read "ATLANTIS—Fewer songs, more explosions" due the film's plan as an action-adventure (unlike previous Disney animated features, which were musicals).[31]

text: Language[edit]

text: Marc Okrand, who developed the Klingon language for the Star Trek films, was hired to devise the Atlantean language for Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Guided by the directors' initial concept for it to be a "mother-language", Okrand employed an Indo-European word stock with its own grammatical structure. He would change the words if they began to sound too much like an actual, spoken language.[26] John Emerson designed the written component, making hundreds of random sketches of individual letters from among which the directors chose the best to represent the Atlantean alphabet.[32][33] The written language was boustrophedon: designed to be read left-to-right on the first line, then right-to-left on the second, continuing in a zigzag pattern to simulate the flow of water.[6]

text: The Atlantean [A] is a shape developed by John Emerson. It is a miniature map of the city of Atlantis (i.e., the outside of the swirl is the cave, the inside shape is the silhouette of the city, and the dot is the location of the crystal). It's a treasure map.

text: Writing[edit]

text: Joss Whedon was the first writer to be involved with the film but soon left to work on other Disney projects. According to him, he "had not a shred" in the movie.[35] Tab Murphy completed the screenplay, stating that the time from initially discussing the story to producing a script that satisfied the film crew was "about three to four months".[36] The initial draft was 155 pages, much longer than a typical Disney film script (which usually runs 90 pages). When the first two acts were timed at 120 minutes, the directors cut characters and sequences and focused more on Milo. Murphy said that he created the centuries-old Shepherd's Journal because he needed a map for the characters to follow throughout their journey.[37] A revised version of the script eliminated the trials encountered by the explorers as they navigated the underground caves to Atlantis. This gave the film a faster pace because Atlantis is discovered earlier in the story.[38]

text:
The directors often described the Atlanteans using Egypt as an example. When Napoleon wandered into Egypt, the people had lost track of their once-great civilization. They were surrounded by artifacts of their former greatness but somehow unaware of what they meant.

—Don Hahn, producer[39]

tag: div

text: The character of Milo J. Thatch was originally supposed to be a descendant of Edward Teach, otherwise known as Blackbeard the pirate. The directors later related him to an explorer so he would discover his inner talent for exploration.[40] The character of Molière was originally intended to be "professorial" but Chris Ure, a story artist, changed the concept to that of a "horrible little burrowing creature with a wacky coat and strange headgear with extending eyeballs", said Wise.[41][42] Don Hahn pointed out that the absence of songs presented a challenge for a team accustomed to animating musicals, as solely action scenes would have to carry the film. Kirk Wise said it gave the team an opportunity for more on-screen character development: "We had more screen time available to do a scene like where Milo and the explorers are camping out and learning about one another's histories. An entire sequence is devoted to having dinner and going to bed. That is not typically something we would have the luxury of doing."[26]

text: Hahn stated that the first animated sequence completed during production was the film's prologue. The original version featured a Viking war party using The Shepherd's Journal to find Atlantis and being swiftly dispatched by the Leviathan. Near the end of production, story supervisor Jon Sanford told the directors that he felt this prologue did not give viewers enough emotional involvement with the Atlanteans. Despite knowing that the Viking prologue was finished and it would cost additional time and money to alter the scene, the directors agreed with Sanford. Trousdale went home and completed the storyboards later that evening. The opening was replaced by a sequence depicting the destruction of Atlantis, which introduced the film from the perspective of the Atlanteans and Princess Kida.[43] The Viking prologue is included as an extra feature on the DVD release.[44]

text: Animation[edit]

text: At the peak of its production, 350 animators, artists and technicians were working on Atlantis[45] at all three Disney animation studios: Walt Disney Feature Animation (Burbank, California), Disney Feature Animation Florida (Orlando), and Disney Animation France (Paris).[46] The film was one of the few Disney animated features produced and shot in 70mm anamorphic format. The directors felt that a widescreen image was crucial, as a nostalgic reference to old action-adventure films presented in the CinemaScope format (2.35:1), noting Raiders of the Lost Ark as an inspiration.[47] Because switching to the format would require animation desks and equipment designed for widescreen to be purchased, Disney executives were at first reluctant about the idea.[26] The production team found a simple solution by drawing within a smaller frame on the same paper and equipment used for standard aspect ratio (1.66:1) Disney-animated films.[47] Layout supervisor Ed Ghertner wrote a guide to the widescreen format for use by the layout artists and mentioned that one advantage of widescreen was that he could keep characters in scenes longer because of additional space to walk within the frame.[48] Wise drew further inspiration for the format from filmmakers David Lean and Akira Kurosawa.[26]

text: The film's visual style was strongly based upon that of Mike Mignola, the comic book artist behind Hellboy. Mignola was one of four production designers (along with Matt Codd, Jim Martin, and Ricardo Delgado) hired by the Disney studio for the film. Accordingly, he provided style guides, preliminary character and background designs, and story ideas.[49] "Mignola's graphic, angular style was a key influence on the 'look' of the characters," stated Wise.[50] Mignola was surprised when first contacted by the studio to work on Atlantis.[51] His artistic influence on the film would later contribute to a cult following.[52]

text: I remember watching a rough cut of the film and these characters have these big, square, weird hands. I said to the guy next to me, "Those are cool hands." And he says to me, "Yeah, they're your hands. We had a whole meeting about how to do your hands." It was so weird I couldn't wrap my brain around it.

text: The final pull-out scene of the movie, immediately before the end-title card, was described by the directors as the most difficult scene in the history of Disney animation. They said that the pullout attempt on their prior film, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, "struggled" and "lacked depth"; however, after making advances in the process of multiplaning, they tried the technique again in Atlantis. The scene begins with one 16-inch piece of paper showing a close-up of Milo and Kida. As the camera pulls away from them to reveal the newly restored Atlantis, it reaches the equivalent of an 18,000-inch piece of paper composed of many individual pieces of paper (24 inches or smaller). Each piece was carefully drawn and combined with animated vehicles simultaneously flying across the scene to make the viewer see a complete, integrated image.[53]

text: At the time of its release, Atlantis: The Lost Empire was notable for using more computer-generated imagery (CGI) than any other Disney traditionally animated feature. To increase productivity, the directors had the digital artists work with the traditional animators throughout the production. Several important scenes required heavy use of digital animation: the Leviathan, the Ulysses submarine and sub-pods, the Heart of Atlantis, and the Stone Giants.[55] During production, after Matt Codd and Jim Martin designed the Ulysses on paper, Greg Aronowitz was hired to build a scale model of the submarine, to be used as a reference for drawing the 3D Ulysses.[54] The final film included 362 digital-effects shots, and computer programs were used to seamlessly join the 2D and 3D artwork.[56] One scene that took advantage of this was the "sub-drop" scene, where the 3D Ulysses was dropped from its docking bay into the water. As the camera floated toward it, a 2D Milo was drawn to appear inside, tracking the camera. The crew noted that it was challenging to keep the audience from noticing the difference between the 2D and 3D drawings when they were merged.[57] The digital production also gave the directors a unique "virtual camera" for complicated shots within the film. With the ability to operate in the z-plane, this camera moved through a digital wire-frame set; the background and details were later hand-drawn over the wire frames. This was used in the opening flight scene through Atlantis and the submarine chase through the undersea cavern with the Leviathan in pursuit.[58]

text: Music and sound[edit]

text: Since the film would not feature any songs, the directors hired James Newton Howard to compose the score. Approaching it as a live-action film, Howard decided to have different musical themes for the cultures of the surface world and Atlantis. In the case of Atlantis, Howard chose an Indonesian orchestral sound incorporating chimes, bells, and gongs. The directors told Howard that the film would have a number of key scenes without dialogue; the score would need to convey emotionally what the viewer was seeing on screen.[59]

text: Gary Rydstrom and his team at Skywalker Sound were hired for the film's sound production.[60] Like Howard, Rydstrom employed different sounds for the two cultures. Focusing on the machine and mechanical sounds of the early industrial era for the explorers, he felt that the Atlanteans should have a "more organic" sound utilizing ceramics and pottery. The sound made by the Atlantean flying-fish vehicles posed a particular challenge. Rydstrom revealed that he was sitting at the side of a highway recording one day when a semi-truck drove by at high speed. When the recording was sped up on his computer he felt it sounded very organic, and that is what is heard within the film. Rydstrom created the harmonic chiming of the Heart of Atlantis by rubbing his finger along the edge of a champagne flute, and the sound of sub-pods moving through water with a water pick.[61]

text: Release[edit]

text: Promotion[edit]

text: Atlantis was among Disney's first major attempts to utilize internet marketing. The film was promoted through Kellogg's, which created a website with mini-games and a movie-based video game give-away for UPC labels from specially marked packages of Atlantis breakfast cereal.[45] The film was one of Disney's first marketing attempts through mobile network operators, and allowed users to download games based on the film.[62] McDonald's (which had an exclusive licensing agreement on all Disney releases) promoted the film with Happy Meal toys, food packaging and in-store decor. The McDonald's advertising campaign involved television, radio, and print advertisements beginning on the film's release date.[63] Frito-Lay offered free admission tickets for the film on specially marked snack packages.[64]

text: Box office[edit]

text: Before the film's release, reporters speculated that it would have a difficult run due to competition from DreamWorks' Shrek (a wholly CGI feature) and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (an action-adventure film from Paramount Pictures). Regarding the market's shift from traditional animation and competition with CGI films, Kirk Wise said, "Any traditional animator, including myself, can't help but feel a twinge. I think it always comes down to story and character, and one form won't replace the other. Just like photography didn't replace painting. But maybe I'm blind to it."[56] Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly noted that CGI films (such as Shrek) were more likely to attract the teenage demographic typically not interested in animation, and called Atlantis a "marketing and creative gamble".[65]

text: Atlantis: The Lost Empire had its world premiere at Disney's El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, California on June 3, 2001[66] and a limited release in New York City and Los Angeles on June 8; a wider release followed on June 15.[3][56] At the premiere, Destination: Atlantis was on display, featuring behind-the-scenes props from the film and information on the legend of Atlantis with video games, displays, laser tag, and other attractions. The Aquarium of the Pacific also loaned a variety of fish for display within the attraction.[67] With a budget of $100 million,[2] the film opened at #2 on its debut weekend, behind Lara Croft: Tomb Raider earning $20.3 million in 3,011 theaters.[68] The film's international release began September 20 in Australia and other markets followed suit.[69] During its 25-week theatrical run, Atlantis: The Lost Empire grossed over $186 million worldwide ($84 million from the United States and Canada).[3] Responding to its disappointing box-office performance, Thomas Schumacher, then-president of Walt Disney Feature Animation, said, "It seemed like a good idea at the time to not do a sweet fairy tale, but we missed."[70]

text: Home media [edit]

text: Atlantis: The Lost Empire was released on VHS and DVD January 29, 2002.[71] During the first month of its home release, the film led in VHS sales and was third in VHS and DVD sales combined.[72] Sales and rentals of the VHS and DVD combined would eventually accumulate $157 million in revenue by mid-2003.[73] Both a single-disc DVD edition and a two-disc collector's edition (with bonus features) were released. The single-disc DVD gave the viewer the option of viewing the film either in its original theatrical 2.35:1 aspect ratio or a modified 1.33:1 ratio (utilizing pan and scan). Bonus features available on the DVD version included audio and visual commentary from the film team, a virtual tour of the CGI models, an Atlantean-language tutorial, an encyclopedia on the myth of Atlantis, and the deleted Viking prologue scene.[71] The two-disc collector's edition DVD contained all the single-disc features and a disc with supplemental material detailing all aspects of the film's production. The collector's-edition film could only be viewed in its original theatrical ratio, and also featured an optional DTS 5.1 track. Both DVD versions, however, contained a Dolby Digital 5.1 track and were THX certified.[71][74] Disney digitally remastered and released Atlantis on Blu-ray on June 11, 2013, bundled with its sequel Atlantis: Milo's Return.[75]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 49% of 140 professional critics have given Atlantis: The Lost Empire a positive review; the average rating is 5.5 out of 10.[76] The site's consensus is: "Atlantis provides a fast-paced spectacle, but stints on such things as character development and a coherent plot".[76] Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 52 out of 100 based on 29 reviews from mainstream critics; this was considered "mixed or average reviews".[77] CinemaScore polls conducted during the opening weekend revealed the average grade cinema-goers gave Atlantis: The Lost Empire was an "A" on an A+-to-F scale.[78]

text: While critics had mixed reactions to the film in general, some praised it for its visuals, action-adventure elements, and its attempt to appeal to an older audience. Roger Ebert gave Atlantis three-and-half stars out of four. He praised the animation's "clean bright visual look" and the "classic energy of the comic book style", crediting this to the work of Mike Mignola. Ebert gave particular praise to the story and the final battle scene and wrote, "The story of Atlantis is rousing in an old pulp science fiction sort of way, but the climactic scene transcends the rest, and stands by itself as one of the great animated action sequences."[79] In The New York Times, Elvis Mitchell gave high praise to the film, calling it "a monumental treat", and stated, "Atlantis is also one of the most eye-catching Disney cartoons since Uncle Walt institutionalized the four-fingered glove."[80] Internet film critic James Berardinelli wrote a positive review of the film, giving it three out of four stars. He wrote, "On the whole, Atlantis offers 90 minutes of solid entertainment, once again proving that while Disney may be clueless when it comes to producing good live-action movies, they are exactly the opposite when it comes to their animated division."[81] Wesley Morris of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote positively of the film's approach for an older audience: "But just beneath the surface, Atlantis brims with adult possibility."[82]

text: Other critics felt that the film was mediocre in regards to its story and characters, and that it failed to deliver as a non-musical to Disney's traditional audience. Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a C+ rating, writing that the film had "gee-whiz formulaic character" and was "the essence of craft without dream".[83] Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times said the storyline and characterizations were "old-fashioned" and the film had the retrograde look of a Saturday-morning cartoon, but these deficiencies were offset by its "brisk action" and frantic pace.[84] Todd McCarthy of Variety wrote, "Disney pushes into all-talking, no-singing, no-dancing and, in the end, no-fun animated territory."[85] Stephanie Zacharek of Salon wrote of Disney's attempt to make the film for an adult audience, "The big problem with Disney's latest animated feature, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, is that it doesn't seem geared to kids at all: It's so adult that it's massively boring."[86] Rita Kempley of The Washington Post panned the film, calling it a "new-fashioned but old-fangled hash" and wrote, "Ironically Disney had hoped to update its image with this mildly diverting adventure, yet the picture hasn't really broken away from the tried-and-true format spoofed in the far superior Shrek."[87]In 2016, watchmojo.com ranked it as the 9th best sci-fi animated film.

text: Themes and interpretations[edit]

text: Several critics and scholars have noted that Atlantis plays strongly on themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. M. Keith Booker, academic and author of studies about the implicit messages conveyed by media, views the character of Rourke as being motivated by "capitalist greed" when he pursues "his own financial gain" in spite of the knowledge that "his theft [of the crystal] will lead to the destruction of [Atlantis]".[88] Religion journalist Mark Pinsky, in his exploration of moral and spiritual themes in popular Disney films, says that "it is impossible to read the movie ... any other way" than as "a devastating, unrelenting attack on capitalism and American imperialism".[89] Max Messier of FilmCritic.com observes, "Disney even manages to lambast the capitalist lifestyle of the adventurers intent on uncovering the lost city. Damn the imperialists!"[90] According to Booker, the film also "delivers a rather segregationist moral" by concluding with the discovery of the Atlanteans kept secret from other surface-dwellers in order to maintain a separation between the two highly divergent cultures.[91] Others saw Atlantis as an interesting look at utopian philosophy of the sort found in classic works of science fiction by H. G. Wells and Jules Verne.[92]

text: When the film was released, some viewers noticed that Atlantis: The Lost Empire bore a number of similarities to the 1990–1991 Japanese anime television program Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water and the 1986 film Castle in the Sky from Studio Ghibli, particularly in its character design, setting, and story.[93] Although Disney never responded formally to claims of plagiarism, co-director Kirk Wise posted on a Disney animation newsgroup in May 2001, "Never heard of Nadia till it was mentioned in this [newsgroup]. Long after we'd finished production, I might add."[94] Both Atlantis and Nadia were inspired, in part, by the 1870 Jules Verne novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, of which Lee Zion (reporting for Anime News Network) wrote, "There are too many similarities not connected with 20,000 Leagues for the whole thing to be coincidence."[95] Critics also saw parallels with the 1994 film Stargate. Milo's characteristics were said to resemble those of Daniel Jackson, the protagonist of Stargate and its spinoff television series Stargate SG-1—which coincidentally launched its own spinoff, titled Stargate Atlantis.[96]

text: Accolades [edit]

text:
Award
Category
Name
Outcome

29th Annie Awards[97]
Individual Achievement in Directing
Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise
Nominated

Individual Achievement in Storyboarding
Chris Ure
Nominated

Individual Achievement in Production Design
David Goetz
Nominated

Individual Achievement in Effects Animation
Marlon West
Nominated

Individual Achievement in Voice Acting – Female
Florence Stanley
Nominated

Individual Achievement in Voice Acting – Male
Leonard Nimoy
Nominated

Individual Achievement for Music Score
James Newton Howard
Nominated

2002 DVD Exclusive Awards[98]
Original Retrospective Documentary
Michael Pellerin
Nominated

2002 Golden Reel Award[99]
Best Sound Editing – Animated Feature Film
Gary Rydstrom, Michael Silvers, Mary Helen Leasman, John K. Carr, Shannon Mills, Ken Fischer, David C. Hughes, and Susan Sanford
Won

Online Film Critics Society Awards 2001[100]
Best Animated Feature

Nominated

2002 Political Film Society[101]
Democracy

Nominated

Human Rights

Nominated

Peace

Nominated

World Soundtrack Awards[102]
Best Original Song for Film
Diane Warren and James Newton Howard
Nominated

Young Artist Awards[103]
Best Feature Family Film – Drama
Walt Disney Feature Animation
Nominated

tag: table

text: Related works[edit]

text: Atlantis: the Lost Empire was meant to provide a springboard for an animated television series entitled Team Atlantis, which would have presented the further adventures of its characters. However, because of the film's under-performance at the box office, the series was not produced. On May 20, 2003, Disney released a direct-to-video sequel called Atlantis: Milo's Return, consisting of three episodes planned for the aborted series.[104] In addition, Disneyland planned to revive its Submarine Voyage ride with an Atlantis theme with elements from the movie and the ride was promoted with a meet-and-greet by the movie's characters. These plans were canceled and the attraction was re-opened in 2007 as the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage, its theme based on the 2003 Disney·Pixar animated film Finding Nemo.[105]

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: The soundtrack to Atlantis: The Lost Empire was released on May 22, 2001. It consists primarily of James Newton Howard's score and includes "Where the Dream Takes You", written by Howard and Diane Warren and performed by Mýa. It was also available in a limited edition of 20,000 numbered copies with a unique 3D album cover insert depicting the Leviathan from the film. A rare promotional edition (featuring 73 minutes of material, compared to the 53 minutes on standard commercial editions) was intended only for Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voters but was bootlegged and distributed with fan-created artwork. Concerning the promotional edition, Filmtracks said, "Outside of about five minutes of superior additional material (including the massive opening, "Atlantis Destroyed"), the complete presentation is mostly redundant. Still, Atlantis is an accomplished work for its genre."[106]

text: Video games[edit]

text:
Reception

Aggregate scores

Aggregator
Score

GameRankings
(PS) 73.83%[107]
(GBC) 64.50%[108]
(GBA) 55.86%[109]

Metacritic
(PS) 73/100[110]
(GBA) 51/100[111]

Review scores

Publication
Score

AllGame
(PS) [112]
(GBA) [113]

CVG
(GBA) 4/10[114]

EGM
(PS) 7/10[115]

Game Informer
(GBA) 7.25/10[116]

Game Revolution
(PS) B−[117]

GameZone
(GBA) 7.8/10[118]

IGN
(PS) 7.5/10[119]

Nintendo Power
(GBC) [120][121]

OPM (US)
[122]

text: There are several video games based on the film. Atlantis The Lost Empire: Search for the Journal (commonly known as Atlantis: Search for the Journal) was developed by Zombie Studios and published by Buena Vista Games, a subsidiary of Disney Interactive. It was released on May 1, 2001, for the Microsoft Windows platform and was a first-person shooter game, the first of two games based on the film developed by Zombie Studios and released for UPC labels from Kellogg's products for promotion.[123][124] Atlantis: The Lost Empire—Trial by Fire (commonly known as Atlantis: Trial by Fire) was the second game developed by Zombie Studios and published by Disney Interactive, and was released May 18, 2001, for the Microsoft Windows platform.[125]

text: Atlantis: The Lost Empire is an action game developed by Eurocom for the PlayStation console which was released June 14, 2001. The player controls Milo, Audrey, Molière, Kida and Vinny as they traverse Atlantis, unlocking its secrets. Some features in the game unlock others (such as a movie) by finding items hidden throughout the game.[119] THQ released Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire for the Game Boy Advance and Game Boy Color. It is a platform game in which the player controls Milo and three other characters from the film across 14 levels on a quest to discover Atlantis.[126][127] The game was met with average to mixed reviews upon release. GameRankings and Metacritic gave it a score of 74% and 73 out of 100 for the PlayStation version;[107][110] 65% for the Game Boy Color version;[108] and 56% and 51 out of 100 for the Game Boy Advance version.[109][111]


document_title: Blue Bloods (season 8)

question_text: who plays the mayor on season 8 of blue bloods

text: Blue Bloods (season 8)

text: Cast[edit]

text: Donnie Wahlberg (Danny Reagan), Bridget Moynahan (Erin Reagan), Will Estes (Jamie Reagan), and Len Cariou (Henry Reagan) are first credited. Then Sami Gayle (Nicky Reagan-Boyle) credited next, marking the fourth season she has been included in the opening credits. Tom Selleck (Frank Reagan) receives an "and" billing at the close of the main title sequence. Amy Carlson (Linda Reagan) left between Seasons 7 and 8.

text: Marisa Ramirez, as Danny's partner Detective Maria Baez, and Vanessa Ray, as Jamie’s partner Eddie Janko, continue to receive "also starring" billing for season 8. Appearing regularly and receiving "special guest star" billing are Gregory Jbara as Deputy Commissioner of Public Information Garrett Moore, Robert Clohessy as Lt. Sidney Gormley, and Abigail Hawk as Detective Abigail Baker, Frank's primary aide.

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
Prod.
code
U.S. viewers
(millions)

156
1
"Cutting Losses"
David M. Barrett
Siobhan Byrne O'Connor
September 29, 2017 (2017-09-29)
801
10.04[3]

Erin pleads with Danny, who has been contemplating retirement since Linda's death in a rescue helicopter crash, to help her with a case involving her ex-husband, Jack (Peter Hermann); Jamie and Eddie go undercover as a couple to bust a shady drug dealer; Frank butts heads with new mayor Margaret Dutton (Lorraine Bracco).

157
2
"Ghosts of the Past"
John Behring
Kevin Riley
October 6, 2017 (2017-10-06)
803
9.49[4]

Frank receives an order from the mayor to attend the annual West Indies parade, which this year is honoring a man who served time for conspiring in an attack against the police. Meanwhile, Danny and Maria investigate the return of Selena Moore (Caroline Pluta), who suspiciously disappeared as a teen 13 years ago. Also, Jamie and Eddie try to help a young woman they believe is being exploited by Congressman Richard Walters (Richard Thomas).

158
3
"The Enemy of My Enemy"
Robert Harmon
Ian Biederman
October 13, 2017 (2017-10-13)
802
8.98[5]

Erin's case against human trafficker Chao Lin (Tia Carrera) faces difficulty when the presiding judge falls off a roof to his death. Erin, who happens to be the one obsessed about winning all the time, is hell bent on trying to prove it was a murder and she demands Danny to lead the investigation in that assumption, despite her saying no to him several times in the past whenever Danny asked for her professional help. Being a control freak, Erin goes to the extent of ven imposing one of her guys into the investigation to make sure it proceeds exactly in the way she wants it to proceed. Danny and Baez cooperate, while also trying to protect a key witness for the prosecution. Elsewhere, Frank's enhanced public safety initiative is opposed by Mayor Dutton, but gains a surprising ally, City Council Speaker Regina Thomas (Whoopi Goldberg).

159
4
"Out of the Blue"
David M. Barrett
Brian Burns
October 20, 2017 (2017-10-20)
804
9.08[6]

Danny and Baez work the case of a detective who was gunned down prior to testifying against a career criminal. Also, Frank personally investigates when Garrett is attacked by a SWAT team outside his home, and Erin brings in a confidential informant against Anthony's wishes.

160
5
"The Forgotten"[7]
Ralph Hemecker
Allie Solomon
October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27)
805
TBD

161
6
"Brushed Off"[8]
Eric Laneuville
Daniel Truly
November 3, 2017 (2017-11-03)
806
TBD

162
7
"Common Ground"[9]
David M. Barrett
Siobhan Byrne O'Connor
November 10, 2017 (2017-11-10)
807
TBD

163
8
"Pick Your Poison"[9]
TBA
TBA
November 17, 2017 (2017-11-17)
808
TBD

text: Ratings[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Air date
Rating/share
(18–49)
Viewers
(millions)
DVR
(18–49)
DVR viewers
(millions)
Total
(18–49)
Total viewers
(millions)

1
"Cutting Losses"
September 29, 2017
1.1/5
10.04[3]
0.7
4.57
1.8
14.60[10]

2
"Ghosts of the Past"
October 6, 2017
1.0/4
9.49[4]
0.7
4.18
1.7
13.67[11]

3
"The Enemy of My Enemy"
October 13, 2017
0.9/4
8.98[5]
0.6
4.13
1.5
13.11[12]

4
"Out of the Blue"
October 20, 2017
0.9/4
9.08[6]
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

5
"The Forgotten"
October 27, 2017
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

6
"Brushed Off"
November 3, 2017
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

7
"Common Ground"
November 10, 2017
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

8
"Pick Your Poison"
November 17, 2017
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD