Miranda rights must be given to any suspect before an interrogation by law enforcement officers. This is done to preserve the acceptability of their statements against them in a trial or court proceedings. Incrimination of a suspect not informed of his/her Miranda rights infringes the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Larson, 2000).
Although the police failed to read the Miranda rights to the judge, the law still allows them to proceed with interrogation. However, the prosecutor is not allowed by law to use the judge’s statement to incriminate him in a trial. The judge should file a motion to suppress his statement because the law requires that the Miranda right be given to any suspect regardless of his/her occupation. Most people are already aware of their Miranda rights; however, the law still requires that these rights be read to them prior to interrogation. The statement given by any suspect who is not informed of his/her Miranda rights cannot be used against the suspect in a trial (Longley, n. d).
The police officers are fully aware that they must read any suspect his Miranda rights prior to interrogation. The judge can assume that the police want to elicit a statement from him. This is because, if the Miranda rights were read to the judge he could have decided to remain silent and not give any statement. However, if the suspect remains silent before the Miranda rights are read to him/her, the law enforcement officer may use the pre-Miranda silence against the suspect in a trial (Prentzas, 2005).
Despite being a judge, the suspect should have been informed of his Miranda rights. The law enforcement officers cannot assume that the judge was aware of his Miranda rights. The judge should not be held on a higher standard regardless of the fact that he works within the justice system. The judge should be treated like any other suspect.