1. Miranda v. Arizona

3. Ernest Arthur Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody
identified by the complaining witness
interrogated for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession
at trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury
found guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to years imprisonment on each count
on appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that his constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession

4. Supreme Court appeal Argued: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966
Decided: June 13, 1966
Vote: 5-4
Majority: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas

5. the Court held that statements made during the interrogation by a defendant in custody will be admissible at trial only if he was informed of the right to consult with an attorney, of the right against self- incrimination, and that he voluntarily waived them
significant impact on law enforcement in the US
making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights

6. The Miranda warning
formal warning required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated
purpose to ensure the accused are aware of these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview
The circumstances triggering the Miranda rights are "custody" and "interrogation"

7. Miranda was not told of his right to counsel.
Prior to writing out the confession he had given orally, he was not advised of his right to remain silent,
He was not informed that his statements would be used against him

8. When prosecutors offered written confession as evidence, his court-appointed lawyer objected that the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded
His objection was overruled

9. Opinion of the Supreme Court
Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that due to the coercive nature of the interrogation, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self- incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney
Miranda's conviction was overturned

10. Warren pointed to the practice of the FBI to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which required notifying a suspect of his right to remain silent
the FBI warning included notice of the right to counsel
the dissenting justices accused the majority of overreacting to the problem of coercive interrogations
they believed that suspects would always demand attorneys and deny the police the ability to gain confessions

11. The epilogue
The case was retried after the original case was thrown out and this time the prosecution called Twila Hoffman, who testified that he had told her of committing the crime
Miranda was convicted in 1967 and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years, but paroled in 1972
When paroled, he returned to his old neighborhood and autographed police officers' "Miranda cards"
stabbed to death during an argument in a bar on January 31, 1976
suspect was arrested, but he exercised his right to remain silent and with no evidence against him, he was released

13. Courts have ruled that any waiver of Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
Many American police departments have pre-printed Miranda waiver forms which a suspect must sign and date
a "public safety" exception if the defendant is in possession of information which require protection of the public, he may be questioned without warning and his responses will be admissible in evidence

14. the Supreme Court’s decision addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations
in none of these cases were they given a full and effective warning of their rights
the questioning drew out oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial

15. The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants
from having to testify if they
may incriminate themselves
through the testimony
a witness may "plead the Fifth”
and not answer if they believe
answering the question may
be self-incriminatory

17. Thank you for your attention!