Miranda v Arizona

Miranda v Arizona
Rights of the Accused
384 U.S. 436 (1966)
oDocket # 759
oArgued February 28, 1966
o Decider June 13, 1966
• 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 selfincrimination 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
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 selfincrimination." 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 thirddegree 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
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