What is the correct standard of review on appeal for a court reviewing a finding that a Miranda waiver is voluntary?

Whether a Miranda waiver was voluntary is a question that will always involve a mixture of fact and law on appellate review. All geographic Federal Circuits and at least forty -five states agree that the question of whether a Miranda waiver was voluntary should be reviewed as a mixed question on appeal, and that legal issues should be reviewed de novo . It appears that this Court agrees, as in 1990 the Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded a case to the Seventh Circuit requi ring it to adopt this standard of review. In 1982, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the question of voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is a question of fact that is subject to a presumption of correctness on appeal. In that case, the Supreme Court o f Virginia relied on precedent from the Seventh Circuit that was later corrected by this Court. Despite this correction, the Court of Appeals of Virginia has again decided that the standard of review on appeal on the issue of the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is an issue of fact that is due deference to the trial court. It rejects the standard of review adopted by almost every other jurisdiction that it is a mixed question that requires legal issues be decided de novo . Virginia is in a substantial minor ity of jurisdictions that treat it as a pure factual analysis that seems to be at odds with this Court’s jurisprudence. This case presents the following question on appeal: 1. What is the correct standard of review on appeal for a court reviewing a finding that a Miranda waiver is voluntary? 3 PARTIES IN COURT BELOW Other than the petitioner and the respondent, there were no other parties in the Supreme Court of Virginia or the Court of Appeals of Virginia. STATEMENT OF