Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco Miranda vs Arizona 1966 Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco

Parties and Their Roles In this cases there were two parties. One party was Chief Justice Earl Warren along with the police. The second part was Ernesto Miranda, who was accused of rape, kidnapping, and robbery.

Facts About the Case The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases.  In all cases, police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room questioned the defendant. Basically, the defendant was never given a full and effective warning of his rights at the prior to the interrogation process in any of the cases. In three of the cases, the defendant did admit to his crimes.

What are Miranda Rights? Before any sort of interrogation, the police are required to give the “Miranda Warning” to the one being interrogated. “You have the right to remain silent when questioned. Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may) You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Court of Jurisdiction The Supreme Court of Arizona was the Court of Jurisdiction.

Case Appealed This case was appealed. It was appealed because the defendant’s claim was the Miranda’s constitutional rights were violating while obtaining the confession via tape recording.

Final Ruling Initially, Miranda was convicted due to the evidence they police had from the investigation. Later, his conviction was reversed due to his appeal. After the appeal, Miranda was later retried and convicted without the admission of his confession.

Reasoning behind the ruling Originally, the Miranda vs. Arizona case was decided that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated while obtaining the confession. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona still held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

Reasoning Behind Ruling The Federal Supreme Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.”

Reasoning behind the ruling Essentially, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda and also reversed the judgment of 2 of the other cases connected to this case because they went against the right to not self incriminate. The Supreme Court also affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in California vs. Stewart after it ruled that Stewart should have been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. 

Why is it considered to be a landmark case? This case is considered to be a landmark because it has set the foundation for all future arrests, interrogations, and incriminations. When someone is being arrested, it is now required for a police officer to read them their “Miranda Right.” If the police officers fail to provide these people with their Fifth Amendment rights, it revokes all future evidence and information provided from that person. This case has set the standards for the legal process during an arrest.

Has this case impacted/changed any other case? The obvious 3 cases that the Miranda v. Arizona that were impacted were Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart which all were in relation to the ultimate decision of the Miranda v. Arizona. However, another case that was a result of the Miranda v. Arizona case was the Berghuis v. Thompkins case on June 1, 2010 This case resulted in the decision that criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney, but choose not to "unambiguously" invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and which may be used in evidence.