ARTICLE 3 SECTION 12 CASE 2 OF 10
NY: Petitioner Michael Vignera picked up by police in
MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA
DOCTRINE:
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS:
1) Prior to any questioning, person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that
any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him;
2) That he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed;
3) The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is done voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently;
4) If he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an
attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning;
5) If the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated,
the police may not question him;
6) The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on
his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he
has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consented to be questioned.
IMPORTANT RULING RELATED TO THE PROVISION/DOCTRINE:
(Court rulings that don’t state doctrines
FACTS:
1. EXCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS: police detained and interrogated defendant without
informing him of his right to remain silent, denying him of his request to speak to his
attorney, and preventing his retained attorney from consulting with him. Court ruled
that statements made during interrogations constitutionally inadmissible.
a. Case was not an innovation in jurisprudence but an application of principles
long recognized and applied in other settings
b. BASIC RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN CONSTITUTION: “No person shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” + “The
accused shall have the Assistance of Counsel”
i. “NEMO TENETUR SEIPSUM ACCUSARE” = NO ONE IS BOUND
TO INCRIMINATE OR ACCUSE HIMSELF
2. FOUR CASES IN QUESTION: all involved incommunicado interrogation of individuals
in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without
full warning of constitutional rights.
3. CASE NO. 759 MIRANDA v. ARIZONA: petitioner Ernesto Miranda arrested at his
home and taken in custody and interrogated without advising him that he had a right
to have an attorney present. Confession obtained after 2 hrs with a typed paragraph
stating that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats or promises of
immunity and “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I
make may be used against me”
a. During trial, Miranda was convicted for kidnapping and rape, and SC of
Arizona emphasized fact that Miranda did not specifically request counsel
b. Decision reversed by this Court, it being clear that he was not in any way
apprised of his right to consult with attorney and have one present during
interrogation, nor his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself
effectively protected in any manner.
4. CASE NO. 760 VIGNERA v.
connection with robbery case to which he orally admitted to the robbery, but there was
no showing that warning given of right to attorney
5. CASE NO 751 WESTOVER v. USA: Petitioner Carl Westover was arrested by local
police in Kansas City as suspect for two robberies. Report also received from FBI that
he was wanted on a felony charge in California. Nothing in record to show he was ever
given any warning as to his rights by local police, but one of the FBI agents testified
(and a paragraph on each of his statements stated) that the agents advised him that he
did not have to make a statement, that any statement he made could be used against
him, and that he had the right to see an attorney. (interrogated twice: local police + FBI)
a. Conviction reversed for lack of proof that Westover knowingly and
intelligently waived his right to remain silent and his right to consult with
counsel prior to time he made the statement.
b. Despite fact that FBI gave warnings at the outset of their interview, from
Westover’s POV, the warnings came at the end of the interrogation process
given that he had been in custody for over 14 hrs and had confessed shortly
after turnover to FBI for second interrogation.
6. CASE 584 CALIFORNIA v. STEWART: Respondent Roy Stewart was pointed out to LA
police as endorser of dividend checks taken in one of the robberies. He was interrogated
on 9 diff occasions for 5 days, isolated for the most part with his interrogators. No record
that he was or was not advised of his right to remain silent or his right to counsel SC of
California reversed conviction for robbery and first degree murder, applying
ESCOBEDO case.
ISSUES:
1. W/N statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way is admissible. NO
RULING:
1. NATURE OF IN-CUSTODY INTERROGATION IN GENERAL: STUDIES IN THE
EARLY 1930’S SHOWED POLICE VIOLENCE AND “THIRD DEGREE” COMMON
(POLICE RESORTED TO PHYSICAL BRUTALITY AND SUSTAINED AND
PROTRACTED QUESTIONING IN ORDER TO EXTORT CONFESSIONS)
a. More psychological than physically oriented: point is to isolate and
intimidate the subject so as to impair his capacity for rational judgment (there
are police manuals on how to do this) which may or may not lead to physical
b. Not exactly case now but sufficiently widespread to be an object of concern
c. Unless proper limitation achieved, there can be no assurance that practices of
this nature will be eradicated in the foreseeable future.
d. WHY A PROBLEM: flagrant violation of law + danger of false confessions +
police and prosecutors less zealous in search for objective evidence
2. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION RECOGNIZED IN PART AS A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, “A RIGHT TO A PRIVATE ENCLAVE WHERE HE MAY
LEAD A PRIVATE LIFE”
a. Founded on a complex of values pointing to one overriding thought: that the
constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a
government must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens
b. Accorded a liberal construction
 c. BRAM v. US: Requisite of voluntariness of confession NOT satisfied by
merely establishing that the confession was not induced by promise or threat.
A confession obtained by compulsion must be excluded whatever may have
been the character of the compulsion and whether the compulsion was
applied in a judicial proceeding or otherwise
d. MALLOY v. HOGAN: VOLUNTARINESS DOCTRINE encompasses all
interrogation practices which are likely to exert such pressure upon an
individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice.
e. RE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL: denying counsel undermines his ability to
exercise the privilege to remain silent if he chose or to speak without any
intimidation (whether blatant or subtle).
i. Presence of counsel would be the adequate protective device
necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to
the dictates of the privilege, insuring that statements made in the
government-established atmosphere are not by compulsion.
ii. Counsel’s presence enhances the integrity of the factfinding
processes in court and enables the defendant under otherwise
compelling circumstances to tell his story without fear, effectively
and in a way that eliminates the evils in the interrogation
3. WITHOUT PROPER SAFEGUARDS, THE PROCESS OF IN-CUSTODY
INTERROGATION OF PERSONS SUSPECTED OR ACCUSED OF CRIME
CONTAINS INHERENTLY COMPELLING PRESSURES WHICH WORK TO
UNDERMINE THE INDIVIDUAL’S WILL TO RESIST AND COMPEL HIM TO
SPEAK WHERE HE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE DO SO FREELY. [IMPORTANT]
a. To combat these pressures and permit full opportunity to exercise privilege
against self-incrimination, accused must be adequately and effectively
apprised of his rights, and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored.
b. Must be informed in CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL terms that he has the right
to remain silent, the threshold requirement of an intelligent decision being
AWARENESS (of the privilege)
i. Warning will show the individual that his interrogators are
prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it.
c. Warning of right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation
that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court.
i. To make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the
consequences of forgoing it, to assure real understanding and
intelligent exercise of the privilege.
ii. Will also serve to make individual more accurately aware that he
is faced with a phase of the adversary system—that he is not in the
presence of persons acting solely on his interests.
d. Right to have counsel present at interrogation also indispensable so not to
overbear the will of one merely made aware of his privilege by interrogators
i. Aim is to assure that individual’s right to choose between silence
and speech remains unfettered throughout interrogation
ii. Need for counsel to protect the 5TH Amendment privilege
comprehends not merely a right to consult with counsel prior to
questioning, but also to have counsel present during any
questioning if the defendant so desires.
iii. Likelihood of coercion by police also reduced, and if exercised,
lawyer can testify to it in court.
iv. NOTE: failure to ask for a lawyer does NOT constitute waiver
1. No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person
may have been aware of this right will stand.
2. Neither is it presumed waived if individual answers
some questions or gives some information on his own
prior to invoking his right to remain silent
e. Also necessary to warn him that if he is indigent, a lawyer may be appointed
to represent him.
f. Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear
i. If defendant wants to exercise his 5TH Amendment privilege, any
statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be
other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.
ii. If he states that he wants an attorney, interrogation must cease until
an attorney is present
1. However, does not mean each police station must have
a “station house lawyer” present at all times; only that if
police propose to interrogate a person, they must make
known that he is entitled to a lawyer
iii. If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney
and a statement is taken, heavy burden rests on the government to
demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently
waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to
counsel.
g. Warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our
opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent,
prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant.
h. HOWEVER, this does not apply to general ON-THE-SCENE questioning as
to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the
factfinding process
i. it is an act of responsible citizenship for individuals to give
whatever information they may have to aid in law enforcement
4. THIS PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AND IN NO WAY PRECLUDES POLICE FROM CARRYING OUT THEIR
TRADITIONAL INVESTIGATORY FUNCTIONS.
a. Attorney advising client is just him doing his job of protecting, to the extent
of his ability, the rights of his client.
b. Confessions play an important role in some convictions but the cases before
the court are an overstatement of the “need” for confession
c. Counsel could advise his client to talk freely to police to clear his name as
opposed to custodial interrogations which does not necessarily afford the
innocent that opportunity
d. FBI and other agencies have been practicing this before already