The Courts and
the Constitution
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436 (1966)
TM
If you were responsible for
selecting all of the judges in
Florida, what would you look
for?
• Knowledge
• Skills
• Disposition
• Other qualities
TM
How are judges different from
other elected officials such as
legislators?
TM
• Should judges be influenced by
political pressures when deciding a
case?
• Would you want a judge to make a
decision based on the law or how the
public might react to the decision?
• Should judges do what is legally right
or should they do what is popular?
TM
Checks on Judges
Judges must follow:
• The Constitution
• Statutes (laws passed by the legislative branch)
• Rules
• Higher court decisions (precedent)
*All decisions of the judicial branch may be reviewed by
a higher court*
TM
So, a judge cannot
decide a case based on
how he or she feels about
an issue.
TM
• If a judge does not follow the existing
law but decides a case based only on
how he or she feels about the issue,
the decision is subject to review by an
appellate court.
• All courts are subject to review by a
higher court except for the highest
court in the country: the Supreme
Court of the United States.
TM
Today, you will be a justice
on the United States Supreme
Court and decide a real
case involving the United
States Constitution.
TM
But first─
You need to know about the
Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
TM
The Fifth Amendment
No person . . . 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 . . . .
TM
The Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment
. . . Nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law . . . .
TM
Constitutional Questions
1. What does it mean to be
“compelled … to be a witness”
against yourself?
TM
Constitutional Questions
What does it mean to be “compelled … to
be a witness” against yourself?
• “Compelled”: To cause an action by force or
overwhelming pressure
• “Witness”: Someone that gives evidence,
specifically, someone who testifies in a cause or
before a judicial tribunal
*Merriam Webster’s Dictionary
TM
Constitutional Questions
2. What does “due process” mean?
TM
Constitutional Questions
What does “due process” mean?
• The conduct of legal proceedings according to
established rules and principles for the protection
and enforcement of the rights of individuals.
• Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have a
Due Process Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment
specifically applies to actions of the states, rather
than the federal government.
*Black’s Law Dictionary
TM
Due Process & confessions: Brown v.
Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
• Three African-American men were charged with
the murder of a white man in Mississippi in 1934.
• The only evidence that the defendants
murdered the victim were confessions that the
police obtained from the defendants after they
were tortured.
– Officers whipped two of the defendants with a belt buckle
and told them that the beatings would continue until they
confessed.
– After another defendant told the officers he was innocent,
they hung him up by his neck from a tree, released him, and
then whipped him until he confessed.
TM
Due Process & confessions: Brown v.
Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
• After a one-day trial, the defendants were
convicted of murder on the basis of these
confessions and they were sentenced to
death.
• The defendants appealed to the Mississippi
Supreme Court, which affirmed the
convictions.
TM
Due Process & confessions: Brown v.
Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
• However, a unanimous United States Supreme
Court reversed the convictions. The Court held:
– Confessions obtained by physical torture violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and cannot be used during trial.
– A confession can only be used during trial against
the speaker if it was freely and voluntarily given.
– “The rack and torture chamber may not be
substituted for the witness stand. The state may not
permit an accused to be hurried to conviction under
mob domination─where the whole proceeding is but
a mask─without supplying corrective process.”
TM
Due Process & confessions: Chambers v.
Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
• After an elderly man was robbed and murdered in
Pompano Beach, Florida, police arrested between 25
and 40 African American men.
• The suspects were held in the Broward County jail for a
week, where they were questioned individually by
groups of officers and prosecutors.
• At one point, some suspects were transported to Miami
due to concerns about a local mob seeking vigilante
justice.
TM
Due Process & confessions: Chambers v.
Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
• None of the suspects were allowed to speak to friends,
family, or attorneys, nor was anyone formally charged
with a crime.
• After one week of interrogation, which included
questioning that lasted all night, four defendants
confessed.
• The defendants were convicted based on these
confessions and sentenced to death.
TM
Due Process & confessions: Chambers v.
Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
• The four defendants appealed, but the Florida
Supreme Court concluded that the confessions were
voluntary and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
• The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed
the convictions. The Supreme Court held that
confessions obtained under duress from prolonged
questioning, without access to lawyers or family,
violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
TM
Due Process & confessions: Cicenia
v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504 (1958)
• Officers suspected Mr. Cicenia of a robbery and murder of a
convenience store clerk. They could not find him at his house,
but left him a message that asked him to come to the police
station the next day.
• Cicenia spoke to a lawyer, who told him to report to the station.
He arrived at 9 AM with his family, and officers spoke with him
alone until 9:30 PM that night.
• During questioning, both Cicenia and his lawyer asked to speak
to each other, but officers denied the requests.
• At 9:30 PM, Cicenia confessed to the murder.
TM
Due Process & confessions: Cicenia
v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504 (1958)
• During trial, Cicenia asked the court not to
admit his confession because he claimed it was
coerced. The trial court denied the request.
• Cicenia was convicted for the murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor.
• The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the
confession was properly admitted and affirmed
his conviction. Cicenia appealed to the United
States Supreme Court.
TM
Due Process & confessions: Cicenia
v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504 (1958)
• The United States Supreme Court also upheld
the conviction and determined that none of
Cicenia’s rights were violated.
• The Supreme Court expressed concern that
requiring the state officers to honor Cicenia’s
requests for his attorney during questioning
would undermine police investigations.
TM
Today’s Case
Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966)
TM
The facts of Miranda v. Arizona*
• Ernesto Miranda, who had a long criminal history, was
arrested for kidnapping and rape.
• After a line-up, police interrogated Miranda for two
hours. He subsequently wrote and signed a confession.
The confession included a statement that he was
aware of his right against self-incrimination.
• But while he was in police custody, officers never told
Miranda of his right against self-incrimination under the
Fifth Amendment, or his right to an attorney under the
Sixth Amendment.
*Miranda v. Arizona actually involved four cases consolidated before the U.S.
Supreme Court. We only consider the facts involving Mr. Miranda.
TM
The facts of Miranda v. Arizona
• During trial, Miranda asked the court to exclude his
confession. The court denied the request, and the jury
heard the confession.
• Miranda was convicted for kidnapping and rape, and
sentenced to 20 to 30 years for each conviction.
• He lost his appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, which held
that the confession was not unconstitutionally obtained.
The appellate court noted that Miranda should have known
his rights because he had been arrested many times
before. He never asked to speak to an attorney during this
police interrogation.
• Miranda now appeals his case to the United States
Supreme Court.
TM
Now you are a Justice on the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Here is the question before
the Court…
TM
Can incriminating statements
made by a person who is in
police custody and subject to
police questioning be used
against that person during
trial if that person is not told of
his or her constitutional rights?
TM
Incriminating Statements
Individually answer the question ─ Yes or No
─ based on the facts of the case, the
constitution, and case precedent.
• Consider the facts of Brown v. Mississippi,
Chambers v. Florida, and Cicenia v. La Gay. Ask
yourself how the facts of those cases are similar
to, or different from, the facts involving Miranda.
• Give 3 reasons for your answer in writing.
TM
Incriminating Statements
If you answer “yes” ─ you are deciding
for the State of Arizona
If you answer “no” ─ you are deciding
for Miranda
TM
Incriminating Statements
• Form groups of 5.
• Choose a Chief Justice, who maintains order.
• Poll the Justices. How did each one of you
answer the question and why?
• Try to reach a unanimous decision.
• You have 10 minutes to discuss the
constitutional question presented, then take
a final poll.
TM
Incriminating Statements
After each Court decides:
• Bring the Chief Justices to the front of
the room to report on the decision of
each group.
• Tally the results and announce the final
decision.
TM
Can incriminating statements
made by a person who is in
police custody and subject to
police questioning be used
against that person during
trial if that person is not told of
his or her constitutional rights?
TM
What did the real U.S.
Supreme Court say and why?
TM
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966)
• The United States Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5 to
4 that the Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination extends beyond the courtroom and
applies to all people “in all settings in which their
freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way.”
• Thus, in situations that involve “custodial interrogation”
by the police, the prosecutor can only use incriminating
statements by the defendant where proper procedural
safeguards were used to protect against compelled
confessions.
TM
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966)
• These “proper procedural safeguards” are
today known as the Miranda warnings. They
include:
– The right to remain silent.
– Advising the suspect that anything said or done may be used
against him or her in court.
– The right to an attorney before speaking with the police, and
to have an attorney present during questioning.
– The right to have an attorney appointed for you, if the suspect
cannot afford one.
TM
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966)
• Because Miranda was not aware of his rights
under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments when
he confessed, the confession was held to be
inadmissible against him in court.
• Today, police officers must administer the
“Miranda rights” before placing a suspect in
custody and asking questions.
• Miranda, along with a prior case Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478
(1964), overruled the holding of Cicenia v. La Gay.
TM
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966)
• 4 Justices dissented from the majority
opinion─Justices Clark, Harlan, White, and
Stewart.
• In the dissent most remembered by historians
and lawyers, Justice Harlan expressed concern
that the bright-line rule would hamper legitimate
police investigations and would not actually
prevent police abuse or coercive interrogations.
TM