Confessions have long been a serious problem for the law. Unless the guilty statement was free of torture, force, or coercion (like being in police custody isolated from friends and family), the truthfulness of the confession is questionable. Further, the Constitution prohibits self incrimination, so how can a confession be valid without a lawyer's advice?

These considerations led to Miranda in which, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected all confessions by in custody suspects unless they were warned of a right to be silent and the right to a lawyer. The basis of Miranda was to deter police misconduct. Unwarned words of the suspect were suppressed, but what if an unwarned suspect leads the police to incriminating physical evidence, say a murder weapon? The weapon speaks for itself, and nothing the suspect actually says is used against him.

Peterson moved to suppress the plant evidence because it derived from an unwarned confession. Earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that physical evidence obtained in violation of Miranda could be used, because the words of the defendant were not used as evidence. The trial court agreed, admitted the evidence, and Peterson was convicted of felony possession of the plants.

On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court, refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court. Miranda principles were already part of the Vermont Constitution. The Court held the purpose of excluding evidence was not to deter police misconduct, but to enforce Vermont Constitutional rights. That Constitution prohibits compelling a person "to give evidence against himself", and grants "the right to be heard by himself and his counsel." Peterson was entitled to a lawyer. The conviction was thrown out.

The Vermont Court's adherence to fundamentals, and avoidance of the expediency indulged in by the U.S. Supreme Court is clear. And what about Guantanamo? State v. Peterson 2007 Vt. 24