If a defendant waives these rights, his statements are admissible against him during the prosecution's case-in-chief. See People v. Mangum, 48 P.3d 568, 571 (Colo. 2002). The prosecution bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant's waiver of these rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Once advised, however, a defendant may waive these rights. People v. Mangum, 48 P.3d 568, 571 (Colo. 2002). The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence.
People v. Polander, 41 P.3d 698, 705 (Colo. 2001); 1 Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure ยง 6.6(c), at 556 (2d ed. 1999); see also People v. Mangum, 48 P.3d 568, 572 (Colo. 2002) (although not dispositive, use of handcuffs suggests custody).Here, Officer Reed introduced himself to Self at his home and asked Self what had happened.