How have the courts interpreted the Miranda waiver?

To establish a valid Miranda waiver, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of circumstances of the interrogation. (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 551.) On review of a denial of a suppression motion, we accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence. (Ibid.) We apply our independent review to undisputed facts and facts properly found true by the trial court to determine whether the challenged statements were illegally obtained. (Ibid.)

Miranda requires that in order for a defendant's statements to be admissible against him, he must have knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and to the presence and assistance of counsel. (People v. Sauceda-Contreras (2012) 55

Page 8

Cal.4th 203, 217.) "A suspect's expressed willingness to answer questions after acknowledging an understanding of his or her Miranda rights has itself been held sufficient to constitute an implied waiver of such rights." (Id. at pp. 218-219.) Thus, a waiver may be implied from the actions and words of the person interrogated. (Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 560 U.S. 370, 379.) Where the prosecution establishes that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by a suspect, his uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of his right to remain silent. (Id. at p. 384.)