Apus Court Cases: Miranda V Arizona

right to remain silent

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 5-4 decision

In a landmark court case determined by the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren announced that in the Miranda Versus Arizona case, there was a majority 5-4 vote in favor of Ernesto Miranda. The majority included: Chief Justice Warren, Justice Black, Justice Douglas, Justice Brennan, and Justice Fortas The Dissenting included: Justice Harlan, Justice Stewart, and Justice White The concuring included Justice Clark.

Chief Justice Warren, whom alongside 9 other justices determined a 5-4 Supreme Court vote in favor of Ernesto Miranda

April 6, 2006

surprising day in phoenix On March 13, 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home with a charge of armed robbery. The amount he stole from the bank clerk amounted to only eight dollars in profit. His record, however, was is no good shape with a previous arrest for armed robbery and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault and burglary. When in police custody he was transported to the Phoenix police station and lead to the interrogation room. In the room Miranda confessed to several other crimes such as kidnapping and rape. . Miranda had never been informed that he had the right to a lawyer or to remain silent. When the case went to trial Miranda’s defense argued the point that the document of Miranda’s confession had been signed stating that he had understood his rights.

Ernesto Miranda

Because Miranda had never been told his constitutional rights the document was illegal, and therefore the confession should be suppressed. The judge, however, allowed the confession to be used and Miranda was convicted on all accounts including his confessions. For each account Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years running concurrently.

Continued: Miranda Pg. 2

Pre-questioning

"You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?" The officer must receive a verbal or written confirmation that the suspect understands his right to remain silent. The officer is then to say "Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?" Once again, as with all the Miranda rights, the officer must have a verbal or written acknowledgement of his right. The next statement is "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. Do you understand?" That statement is followed by "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?" The next Miranda right states, "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. Do you understand?" The last Miranda right specifically asks "Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?"

Miranda Continued 1… The

Supreme Court Sees Miranda

Shortly after being sentenced, Miranda and his defense appealed the case to the Supreme Court. They charged that the trial was unconstitutional, because Miranda was not told his legal rights as it is law to do. It was obvious to that Miranda had not been told his rights before he was questioned at the police station. The court said that it was not legal that Miranda had not been told that he did not have to incriminate himself, therefore, all statements given my Miranda we considered to be inadmissible. The court decided that indeed Miranda’s case was unconstitutional because he had never been given his rights and reversed the decision. From this case, the Supreme Court established that before any kind of interrogation, a suspect must be read his or her rights. The law was also changed how a suspect was read his or her rights.

Majority Opinion Justice Warren stated

Dissenting Opinion

VIVA LAStated MIRANDA! Justice Harlan

Miranda v. Arizona was a case that completely revolutionized society. From it came the Miranda “The rules do not serve due process interests in preventing blatant coercion famouswhich words often heard on popular television shows, movies, and the like. The “The cases beforeRights; us raisethe questions since . . they doimportant nothing to theofpoliceman who criminal is prepared to lie from Parks group feels that this case was. extremely to contain the rights all Americans, go to the roots of our concepts of American the start…” or not. the Though Miranda and was guilty for his crime, his actions and the lawsuit that criminal jurisprudence: restraints societydid confess followed changed the country for the better. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution, must observe consistent with the Federal citizens have the rightforto withhold and remain to do until legalimpair, representative is not “Whatinformation the Court largely ignores is so that its arules if they will Constitution in prosecuting individuals present. The American principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a much more sensible eventually serve wholly to frustrate, an instrument of law enforcement that has crime.” approach to law, and we believe thatquite this particular case sustains the constitutional rights long and reasonably been thought worth the price paidoffor it. There can American citizens, and possibly saves the lives of the potentially innocent that are accused of a Chief Justice Warren then draws attention to be little doubt that the Court's new code would markedly decrease the number the 5th amendment, “The Fifth Amendment of confessions…” privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple…”

VIVA LA MIRANDA!

VIVA LA MIRANDA!

As to the assumption of police officers thinking that the person in question knows their rights, Chief Justice Warren states, “No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead: Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right…”

Supreme Court, 1966

Miranda v. Arizona was a case that completely revolutionized society. From it came the Miranda Rights; the famous words often heard on popular television shows, movies, and the like. The Parks group feels that this case was extremely important to the rights of all Americans, criminal or not. Though Miranda did confess and was guilty for his crime, his actions and the lawsuit that followed changed the country for the better. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution, citizens have the right to withhold information and remain to do so until a legal representative is present. The American principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a much more sensible approach to law, and we believe that this particular case sustains the constitutional rights of American citizens, and possibly saves the lives of the potentially innocent that are accused of a crime . they did not commit