Unit 5 Lesson 6 Readings
Task 2 and 6 Reading
The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
Task 3 and 4 Reading
Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary
Miranda v. Arizona, decided by the Supreme Court in 1966 by a 5-4 majority, held that
the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination applied to an
individual in police custody or ‘deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’
In order to safeguard this right, the Court ruled that prior to being questioned suspects
have to be informed of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used
against them in court, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if
they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed prior to questioning if they so desire.
A statement obtained without compliance with these rules is inadmissible as is the fact
that a defendant has chosen to exercise the right to remain silent ‘in the face of
accusation.’ Although waiver of these rights is possible, the Court emphasized that ‘a
heavy burden rests on the government’ to prove that such a waiver has actually taken
place.
The Court based its holding on an extensive review of actual police interrogation
practices. In addition to outright physical abuse and the ‘third degree,’ the police had
frequently obtained confessions through a variety of ploys and subterfuges, many of
which were codified in police manuals and texts. The Court found that ‘the very fact of
custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on the
weakness of individuals.’
Hailed by civil libertarians as a victory for individual rights, the decision was attacked by
conservatives as undermining the efforts of law enforcement officials. Meanwhile, a
series of post-Warren Court decisions have significantly limited the applicability of
Miranda while not overruling the case outright.
Task 5 Reading Done as a class with Ipads
“Excerpts From the Miranda v. Arizona Oral Arguments”