Coerced confessions & Miranda: suppressing a statement in Texas

A motion to suppress a statement asks a Texas judge to keep a confession out of your trial — because it came from custodial interrogation without a valid Miranda warning, broke the written- or oral-statement rules of Code of Criminal Procedure art. 38.22, or was not made voluntarily. This is the Fifth-Amendment, statement side of suppression; for physical evidence, see the motion to suppress.

Peer Recognition

Martindale-Hubbell® 2026 Honors

Independent peer-review ratings recognizing legal ability and ethical standards.

Awards reflect peer-reviewed ratings only. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Suppressing a statement vs. suppressing evidence

Two different suppression doctrines get confused constantly, and they run on different constitutional tracks. This page is about excluding a statement — a confession or admission the accused made — under the Fifth Amendment, Miranda, and the Texas confession statute, article 38.22. Suppressing physical evidence found in an illegal search, stop, or seizure is a separate motion that runs on the Fourth Amendment and article 38.23. The mechanics, the triggers, and even who carries the burden differ.

For physical-evidence suppression, see our guide to the motion to suppress. This page does not cover Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure — the roadside stop, the warrant, the pat-down, the car search. It covers what happens to words: the statements a person gives to police, and the rules that decide whether a jury ever hears them.

When Miranda applies: custodial interrogation

The most common misunderstanding about Miranda v. Arizona is that police must recite the warnings to everyone they talk to. They do not. Miranda is triggered only by custodial interrogation — and both halves of that phrase have to be present before the warnings are required at all.

In Miranda, the Supreme Court held that “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.”¹ “Custodial interrogation” means questioning initiated by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.

Custody in Texas is measured objectively. In Herrera v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a person is in custody “only if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that his freedom of movement was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest.”² The test looks at all of the objective circumstances of the questioning; an officer's private, unshared suspicion that someone is a suspect does not, by itself, create custody. Herrera also confirms that the meaning of “custody” for article 38.22 is the same as for Miranda.

One consequence matters at the courthouse door: the burden of coming forward. Herrera holds that the defendant “bears the initial burden of proving that a statement was the product of custodial interrogation.”² The State has no obligation to show it complied with Miranda until the record establishes that the statement came from custodial interrogation by a law-enforcement agent. That is why a suppression motion has to lay out the who, where, and how of the questioning — not just assert that warnings were missing.

Custody — the reasonable-person test

Would a reasonable person in the suspect's position have felt free to end the encounter and leave? Courts weigh how the person was summoned, the physical setting, how long the questioning ran, whether the person was confronted with evidence of guilt, and whether any added restraint was placed on freedom of movement.

Interrogation

Express questioning, or its functional equivalent — words or conduct by police reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. A voluntary, unprompted outburst is not the product of interrogation, even in custody.

The warnings, and invoking silence or counsel

Before custodial interrogation, Miranda requires that a person be warned “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.”¹ Those warnings exist so a suspect can make a real choice — and so a court can later test whether any waiver of the right was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Invoking the rights is not automatic, and Texas and federal courts hold suspects to a clear-statement rule. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court held that a suspect must invoke the right to remain silent (or counsel) “unambiguously”; if the person “makes a statement ... that is ambiguous or equivocal or makes no statement,” the police are not required to stop questioning.³ Sitting silent for hours is not, by itself, an invocation — a point that surprises many people. A vague “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” can fall short.

But a clear invocation is powerful. Both Miranda and Berghuis hold that once the right to counsel or the right to remain silent is invoked, “further interrogation must cease.”³ Under Miranda, if the individual indicates in any manner that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he asks for a lawyer, questioning must stop until counsel is present.¹ When officers keep going after a clear invocation, everything that followed becomes a candidate for suppression.

The flip side is the waiver rule, and it favors the accused. Miranda places a “heavy burden” on the government to show a knowing and intelligent waiver, and holds that “a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.”¹

Texas art. 38.22: the written- and oral-statement rules

Texas does not stop at Miranda. The Texas confession statute, Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.22, layers its own procedural rules on top of the federal warnings — and those rules have real teeth, because a statement that fails them is inadmissible even if Miranda was technically satisfied.

Written statements — section 2. A written statement made as a result of custodial interrogation is not admissible unless the accused received the statutory warnings (the Miranda warnings plus the Texas addition that the accused may terminate the interview at any time) and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived those rights, with the warnings appearing on the face of the statement.

Oral statements — section 3. This is where Texas is stricter than federal law. An oral statement from custodial interrogation is generally inadmissible unless it was electronically recorded, the warnings were given on the recording, and the accused knowingly waived the rights on the recording. A missing, incomplete, or garbled recording is one of the most common reasons an oral custodial statement gets kept out in Texas courts.

Section 2 — written statements

Requires the printed warnings on the statement itself plus a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver. The paperwork has to match the statute; defects in the warning language or the waiver are litigable.

Section 3 — oral statements

Requires electronic recording of the custodial interrogation, with the warnings and waiver captured on the recording, subject to limited statutory exceptions (for example, certain res gestae statements and statements containing facts later found to be true that establish guilt).

Section 5 — what is not covered

Article 38.22 does not bar voluntary statements that are not the product of custodial interrogation, nor genuinely spontaneous (res gestae) statements. Those may come in even without warnings — which is why the custody question in the last section is so often the whole ballgame.

Involuntary statements: coercion, promises, threats

A statement can be excluded not only for a warning defect but because it was not voluntary. Texas recognizes three overlapping routes to challenge voluntariness, and the Court of Criminal Appeals mapped them in Oursbourn v. State: a claim may rest on (1) article 38.22, section 6 (“general voluntariness”); (2) Miranda as expanded by article 38.22, sections 2 and 3; or (3) the Due Process Clause.⁴ A single statement can be involuntary under one, two, or all three.

The routes are not identical, and the difference is the practical heart of the defense. Due-process and Miranda involuntariness claims require police overreaching — coercive conduct by the State. Classic examples are a threat, physical mistreatment, or a promise of leniency held out to induce the confession. Deception by police can also bear on voluntariness. Under Oursbourn, absent coercive police activity there is no due-process violation.⁴

Section 6 of article 38.22 sweeps wider. Oursbourn explains that section 6 “may also be construed as protecting people from themselves because the focus is upon whether the defendant voluntarily made the statement” — so a confession given under the influence of illness, medication, or even a private person's threat can be involuntary under Texas law even when the officers did nothing wrong.⁴ That is a broader safety net than the federal Constitution provides, and it is unique to the Texas statute.

How the statement gets suppressed: the § 6 hearing

Because this is a suppression doctrine, it is litigated by motion, not argued to the jury as a Penal Code defense. Counsel files a written motion to suppress the statement, identifying the custodial interrogation, the warning or waiver defect, and any coercion, promise, or threat that bears on voluntariness. The judge then resolves it — typically before trial — outside the jury's hearing.

Article 38.22, section 6, sets the mechanics. When a question is raised about the voluntariness of a statement, the court “must make an independent finding in the absence of the jury as to whether the statement was made under voluntary conditions.” Oursbourn confirms that section 6 is the “law applicable” whenever voluntariness is litigated, and that the judge must make that independent determination.⁴ This is the burden-shifting the Quick Answer flagged: once the defense contests voluntariness, the State must prove — by a preponderance of the evidence — that the statement was voluntary and that any Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, before the jury may hear a word of it.

Two more tools sit alongside the motion. First, if a fact issue about voluntariness survives to trial, Oursbourn holds the judge must give the jury a general voluntariness instruction under sections 6 and 7 — telling jurors not to consider the statement unless they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it was voluntary.⁴ Second, the Texas exclusionary rule, article 38.23, bars “evidence obtained ... in violation of” the constitution or laws, and applies to statements as well as things; where a genuine, material fact dispute exists about how the statement was obtained, the jury gets a 38.23 instruction too.⁴

How Texas and federal courts have applied Miranda and art. 38.22

Four decisions frame almost every statement-suppression fight in a Texas courtroom — two from the Supreme Court and two from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Each is quoted below from the opinion itself.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is the source rule. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements from custodial interrogation without procedural safeguards, that warnings must precede questioning, and that on any invocation — silence or counsel — “the interrogation must cease.” It also set a “heavy burden” on the government to prove waiver.¹

Herrera v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) supplies the Texas custody test: a person is in custody “only if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that his freedom of movement was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest,” the standard is objective, and the defendant “bears the initial burden of proving that a statement was the product of custodial interrogation.”²

Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) governs invocation and waiver. The Court held the right to remain silent must be invoked “unambiguously,” that ambiguous statements or silence do not require police to stop, but that “if the right to counsel or the right to remain silent is invoked at any point during questioning, further interrogation must cease.”³

Oursbourn v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) is the Texas voluntariness roadmap. It separates the three theories, holds that due-process and Miranda claims require police overreaching while article 38.22 section 6 is broader, and requires the trial judge to make an independent voluntariness finding and, where the issue is litigated, to instruct the jury.⁴

When suppression does NOT apply

Suppression is powerful, but it has real limits, and honest counsel names them early. Understanding where the doctrine stops is part of deciding whether a motion is worth filing.

• No custody, no Miranda. If a reasonable person would have felt free to leave, there was no custodial interrogation, and neither Miranda nor article 38.22, section 2 or 3, requires warnings. Voluntary statements and ordinary questions during a routine traffic stop usually fall outside the rule.
• Spontaneous and res gestae statements. A blurted, unprompted remark is not the product of interrogation. Article 38.22 expressly preserves certain res gestae statements even without warnings.
• General on-the-scene questioning. Miranda itself says general fact-finding questions at a scene, where the coercive atmosphere of custody is not present, are “not affected” by the decision.¹
• Public-safety and booking questions. Limited exceptions exist for questions needed to protect public safety and for routine booking information, which are treated differently from interrogation.
• Impeachment. A statement kept out of the State's case-in-chief for a Miranda violation can still be used to impeach a defendant who takes the stand and testifies inconsistently — provided the statement itself was voluntary. A truly coerced statement cannot be used for any purpose.
• Private actors. Due-process and Miranda claims target government coercion. A statement to a private person, standing alone, is generally not a constitutional violation — though under Oursbourn it may still be attacked as involuntary under article 38.22, section 6.⁴

Even a strong suppression issue is fact-intensive. Whether a person was in custody, whether an invocation was clear, whether a recording satisfies section 3, and whether a promise or threat crossed the line are questions decided on the specific record — which is why the recording, the reports, and the timeline get read closely, early.