Presentation on theme: "Miranda Rights 5 th Amendment A cop points at you and says, "Read him his rights." From TV, you know this is not good. You know that you have been taken."— Presentation transcript:
Miranda Rights 5 th Amendment A cop points at you and says, "Read him his rights." From TV, you know this is not good. You know that you have been taken into police custody and are about to be informed of your "Miranda Rights" prior to being questioned.
The Actual Miranda Rights 1. You have the right to remain silent. 2.Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law 3. You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future questioning. 4.If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you free of charge if you wish.
What are the Miranda Rights. The rights that we refer to as the Miranda rights are constitutional rights which the court, in Miranda v. Arizona, decided needed to be provided to certain.
When and are the Rights read The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her.
Who needs to hear the rights The Rights need to be spoken by a law enforcement official to an individual who is a criminal suspect and in police custody before they begin to question the individual about the circumstances surrounding the crime.
Where the Rights are read After a person has officially been taken into custody
Why are the Rights important In order for incriminating evidence to be admissible at trial, the police need to provide the suspect with his or her Miranda warnings prior to obtaining the evidence. The Supreme Court found that police officers need to provide suspects with their Miranda rights in order to safeguard a person’s right not to self incriminate. That is why a suspect who is in police custody must be informed of his or her rights prior to any police questioning. If a person is arrested and the police do not intend to question the person then the Miranda rights do not have to be provided.
Ernesto Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966 Ernesto Miranda’s mug shot Downtown Phoenix Arizona
Arguments in the case For Miranda: The police clearly violated Miranda's 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule (evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court) and the Gideon rule (all felony defendants have the right to an attorney) in prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty, and he deserved a new trial. For Arizona: Ernesto Miranda was no stranger to police procedures. He negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding. He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction was based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was just. The Supreme Court should uphold his conviction and should not further cripple the work of police.
History of the Miranda Rights 1966- The Court issues its decision in the landmark case Miranda vs. Arizona, holding that the 5 th Amendment right against self-incrimination is not limited to courtroom testimony but also applies when a suspect is taken into police custody for questioning the outcome of Miranda v. Arizona provided that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when they are placed under arrest decision was based on a case in which a defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was accused of robbery, kidnapping, and rape; During police interrogation, he confessed to the crimes. The Miranda Warning is a legal necessity throughout the United States, and varies only slightly in its wording in different states
Other important cases Miranda vs. Arizona The court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights.
Us vs. Dickerson In 1968, Congress passed a law trying to get around the Miranda ruling, which said that prosecutors in federal cases can use statements gathered without informing suspects of their Miranda rights, as long as the statements were given voluntarily. In June 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Dickerson that the 1966 Supreme Court ruling had precedence over the 1968 federal law because the ruling was based on constitutional rights.
Alvarado vs. Yarbourough Michael Alvarado was brought in for questioning when he was seventeen, and was not read his Miranda rights before the interrogation session began. He was convicted of second degree murder and attempted robbery, in part based on incriminating statements made during the interrogation session. While previous rulings have established that you do not have to read Miranda rights when a "reasonable person" knows that they can get up and leave at any time, the case has been appealed, since Michael was a minor and there are generally special protections for minors.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was sitting on the side of the road in his truck when police asked him for identification, based on suspicions of a violent argument. Hiibel said he had done nothing wrong and refused to provide identification. The police arrested him, and he was convicted of a misdemeanor for resisting arrest. Hiibel's case before the Supreme Court is that the police only had reasonable suspicion that he had done something wrong, and not probable cause, and therefore Hiibel should not have been required to give them any information, including his name.
What Life would be like without the Miranda Rights? Without Miranda Rights, people who were arrested could have anything they said used against them as evidence in a trial, and be coerced into saying things they don’t mean. People may not know to get an attorney if they are not read their rights, and therefore they could be confused and end up saying things they didn’t mean to.
Things that are safe to say in custody "You have the right to remain silent" means KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. It's not called a Warning for nothing. You may safely state the following: (a) Your name. (b) Your address. (c) Your Social Security Number if asked. (d) "I invoke my 5th Amendment right to an attorney." Invoking your Rights is not an admission of guilt. It just means that you are smart enough to call an expert for advice.
Definitions of the Rights "Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law" means that anything you say will be used against you in court. You can count on it. "You have the right to an attorney during interrogation" sounds as if you can invoke your right to an attorney at any time during the interrogation. Don't count on it and don't bet on it. Ask for an attorney before the interrogation. "But I don't need an attorney! I didn't do anything wrong!" is the most disastrous phrase a fraud victim can say to law enforcement detectives, because it tells the detectives that they can use all interrogation techniques at their disposal without the presence of advising counsel to warn you to keep your mouth shut.
Then and Now Miranda rights have become an integral aspect of the American legal system. While prior to the Miranda decision, the courts did not allow forced confessions to be admitted as evidence, there was nothing in place to ensure that a suspect’s testimony was truly voluntary in nature. The Miranda decision created a rule to make sure that statements received by suspects are, in fact, voluntary and not coerced. Currently, if law enforcement agencies receive statements or interrogate suspects without reading them their Miranda rights, that testimony is not admissible as evidence in a court of law.