Miranda v Arizona Rights of the Accused

Citations 384 U.S. 436 (1966) oDocket # 759 oArgued February 28, 1966 o Decider June 13, 1966

Facts What: Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of cases in which defendants were questioned “while in custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom in any significant way” Who: Ernesto Miranda versus the state “police powers” What: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. His conviction was based in part on incriminating statements he made to the police while they interrogated him. At no time during the questioning did the police inform Miranda that he did not have to talk to them or that he had the right to a lawyer while being questioned by the police. How: The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction.

Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self- incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

 Confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation.  Police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights.  It gives the police a clear set of rules to follow  It is fair to defendants because it informs them of their rights. It protects the basic Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. And it promotes a sense of fairness, integrity in the criminal justice system  We do have a constitutional principle that says people have the right to remain silent. And in our system, the government cannot force you to give evidence against yourself. And if that is the constitutional rule, I don't see any basis for objecting to a principle that says people have a right to be informed of their rights

 Because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.  Could have devastating effect on law enforcement.  Violent criminal cases could go unsolved because of Miranda  The exclusionary rule feature of Miranda; That is the feature that throws out perfectly voluntary confession

My Decision  Morality of the issue?  Patriotism of the issue?  Constitutionality of the issue?  Concerns with this case in the future? Decide in agreement with Miranda and the Supreme Court

The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations

Dissenting Justices Tom Clark John Harlan Potter Stewart Byron White “I believe the decision of the Court represents poor constitutional law and entails harmful consequences for the country at large “ “The new rules are not designed to guard against police brutality or other unmistakably banned forms of coercion. Those who use third- degree tactics and deny them in court are equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers” “Nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. “

Because I just Couldn't Resist!!!!

1. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. 2. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. 3. 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. 4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. 5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney 6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you