Master 1 / English
ERNESTO MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 1966
American criminal law: suspects rights
1. General presentation:
The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda," or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the
formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police
custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling.
Its purpose is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S
Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview.
Translate the undermined expressions and the last sentence from the above paragraph into French.
Videos: Please watch the videos and answer the questions or fill in the blanks:
a) Miranda Rights Origins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QiFg7MJL3E
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
How do most of us know about Miranda rights?
When were Miranda rights established? Where?
What were the charges against Ernesto Miranda?
Did he confess to his crimes?
Was he convicted? Why, why not?
Why were Miranda rights established?
In what case are alternative methods used to make sure that all suspects understand their
rights?
8. What right is specifically mentioned in France?
9. What happened to Ernesto Miranda?
b) Miranda rights: findlaw - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2UN8sGhAj8 (start at 1:02 to 2:34)
The Miranda protections require the police to explain _________ rights to anyone questioned while in
__________________. They are:
o You have the right to remain________________.
o Anything you do say may later be used against you.
o You are legally ________________ to speak with an attorney.
o If you are _____________ to afford an attorney one will be provided to you at no cost.
In case you are wondering, Miranda rights are named after an _____________US Supreme Court case
called Miranda _________________ Arizona. The court’s ___________________ in this case gives anyone
in police custody the right to be advised of their right against self _________________ which is also part
of the ___________ amendment to the US constitution.
2. If I'm arrested, do the police have to "read me my rights"?
No. However, if they start questioning you but haven't read you your rights, they can't use anything you
say as direct evidence against you at trial. What are these rights? Popularly known as the Miranda
warning (ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona), your rights consist of the familiar
litany invoked by TV police immediately upon arresting a suspect:
o
You have the right to remain silent.
o
If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.
o
You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any
questioning.
o
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
o
If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any
time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.)
1
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy
downtown street, or in the middle of an open field: If you are in custody (deprived of your freedom of
action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question you and
use your answers as direct evidence at trial. If you are not in police custody, however, no Miranda
warning is required. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the
street for questioning about a recent crime and the person blurts out a confession before the police
have an opportunity to deliver the warning.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrests-interrogations-faq-29076-2.html
Vocabulary: match the words with their definitions
•
•
•
•
inculpatory evidence
exculpatory evidence
circumstantial evidence
direct evidence
a) evidence that can establish guilt
b) real, tangible, or clear evidence of a fact, happening, or thing that requires no thinking or
consideration to prove its existence
c) evidence which is favorable to a defendant, to clear from blame
d) indirect evidence that tends to establish a conclusion by inference
Circumstantial v. direct evidence: explanation
The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John
testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's
testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must
conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into
another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw
Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which
it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumstantial%20evidence
3. Suspects’ constitutional rights:
The self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment says “No person shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
The 6th amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial and the right an attorney: “In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial (…);and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; (…) to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
4. The case: Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the
kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old woman 10 days earlier. After two hours of interrogation by police
officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge. However, at no time was Miranda told of his
right to counsel, and he was not advised of his right to remain silent or that his statements would be
used against him during the interrogation before being presented with the form on which he was asked
to write out the confession he had already given orally. At trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's
written confession as evidence, his court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of
these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. Moore's objection was
overruled and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and
kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run
concurrently. Moore filed Miranda's appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court .
Adapted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
2
5. Opinion of the Supreme Court:
Chief Justice Earl Warren, delivered the opinion of the Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966), a landmark decision which passed 5-4. He ruled that, due to the coercive nature of the
custodial interrogation by police (Warren cited several police training manuals which had not been
provided in the arguments), no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment selfincrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made
aware of his/her rights and the suspect had then waived them:
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to
remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly
informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during
interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him .
Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned. The Court also made clear what had to happen if the
suspect chose to exercise his or her rights:
If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he
wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an
attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual
must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any
subsequent questioning.
This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known
as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their
rights. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United
States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart.
Adapted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
Vocabulary: Please find in the above article the underlined words that match the definitions below.
a) relinquish, renounce, give up
b) to make an official decision about something, especially a legal problem
c) ruling that establishes a new precedent or a significant new legal principle, or otherwise
changes the interpretation of existing law.
d) very poor
e) to change a decision so that it becomes the opposite of what it was before, to invalidate
(opposite : to uphold = to confirm)
6. Grammar: please complete the sentences below with the correct prepositions:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
o)
The suspect is being interrogated __________ the police.
After hours of questioning, the suspect confessed _________ his crime.
The suspect was later accused ________ arson.
The football hooligans were charged ____________ disrupting the peace.
Who was that Hollywood actress who was arrested __________ shoplifting.
He was sentenced _________ five years imprisonment but was released ____ parole after 4.
The thief broke ________ the house and stole jewellery.
The man was convicted _________ first degree murder.
The suspect was released _______ bail.
That man is the primary suspect ________ a robbery case.
A man is being held ________ police custody in connection with the murder.
Ernesto Miranda had the right _______ an attorney.
The lawyer filed an appeal _______ the Supreme Court.
You are legally entitled ________ speak with an attorney.
It is part of the 5th amendment _________ the US constitution.
3
7. Have you the right to remain silent?
Miranda was a controversial decision, one that law enforcement officials, in particular, railed against.
They argued that no criminal in his right mind would talk after being advised that he didn't have to.
But in a surprising number of instances, suspects sing, despite clear warnings about the pitfalls of
self-incriminating comments. ''If you take a look at the Miranda warning and say it slow and clear to a
person with half a brain, you would think, why would they say anything after that?'' said Bob Connelly,
a retired New York City homicide detective who supports Miranda. ''But they do it all the time. A lot of
them just want to take it off their chest.''
As the warning became standard operating procedure in police departments, many of the detectives
made their peace with it. It became ingrained in their routine, “our members have accepted Miranda,''
said James Fotis, executive director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which represents
65,000 active and retired officers.
The ruling's critics, however, continue to regard Miranda as a loophole that sets criminals free.
Richard Uviller, a Columbia University law professor who wrote a book about the year he spent with
New York police officers, said that Miranda ''deters confessions or prevents the use of evidence in
some important cases.''
Miranda warnings are not required in most arrests, which are racked up by patrol officers on their
beats. ''Most arrests are made when people are caught red-handed,'' said James Fyfe, a Temple
University criminologist and former New York City Police lieutenant. ''In almost all those cases, the
evidence is so strong that it's not necessary to talk to a suspect.''
Miranda comes into play only when the officer -- almost always a highly experienced detective, more
often than not working homicides -- has arrested a suspect and plans to interrogate. And when the
process moves forward, investigators and criminologists say, good detectives facing guilty suspects
often obtain a statement. They say many of those who remain silent after being read their rights are
often convicted with other evidence, especially the sort of advanced forensic evidence, such as DNA
analysis, that was undreamed of back in 1966. And then there is the sense that Miranda is simply fair
play.
'It put the police department on the line, outlined that it had rules to obey,'' said Detective Peter Killen,
who joined the New York police four years before the Miranda ruling and worked in the 68th Precinct in
Brooklyn. ''And when it came to the suspects, well, the suspects were given rights.''
NYTIMES Juan Forero (edited): http://www.nytimes.com/
learning/teachers/featured_articles/19991213monday.html
Vocabulary:
- Take it off their chest is to say something you have wanted to say for a long time and you feel better
because you have done this.
- To be caught red handed, to find somebody in the act of committing a crime.
Match the following:
a) railed against b) right mind
c) sing
d) pitfalls
e) ingrained
f) loophole
g) deters
h) racked up
i) undreamed of
j) to put on the line
inform
firmly fixed
dissuaded
accumulated
criticised
mentally normal
inconceivable
to place something at risk
difficulties
a means of evading
Written comprehension questions:
a) Why was Miranda a controversial ruling in the view of many law enforcement officials?
b) Why do many crime suspects make self-incriminating comments to police even after being read
and understanding the Miranda right?
c) What has lead to law enforcement officials’ support of Miranda?
d) How might Miranda “deter confessions or prevent the use of evidence in some important cases”?
e) When are Miranda warnings required and not required in making arrests?
4
f)
How do the statements in the last paragraph summarise the opinion of many law enforcement
officials?
8. Listening: NPR, All things considered June 16th 2011
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/16/137231311/top-court-releases-options-on-criminal-cases
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Until recently the Miranda warning was restricted to adults.
Now this includes people over the age of thirteen.
J.D.B. was interrogated by several uniformed policemen. He was questioned about a robbery.
Before the interrogation began he was told he was free to leave.
The policeman threatened to have him imprisoned.
True or false.
True or false.
True or false.
True or false.
True or false
True or false.
J.D.B._________________ confessed and helped police_________________ stolen items. At trial, his
lawyer tried ____ ________ the confession ______________ ______
on the grounds
________
__________ the boy’s age and circumstances, the confession was, ___ ________, _____________ and
that J.D.B.____________ __________ _________ _____________ of his right __ ____ attorney and to
______________ silent. The state countered that the boy ___ ___ _____ ___ __________, that he
therefore was not ____ ____________ and that age _________ ____ ____ considered in determining
_________________ police _________ suspects of their rights.
7) In this case was the investigator reticent about giving the Miranda warnings?
8) After this ruling will the police have to inform minors of their Miranda rights?
9) In Justice Sotomayor’s opinion can children be considered as miniature adults?
10) How will this decision change police practices towards juveniles in the future?
5