Miranda vs Arizona (1966)

By Jenna and Sarah

The Miranda Rights



You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you at government expense. Do you understand the rights presented to you? Should the suspect not speak English, these rights must be translated to make sure they are understood.

Historical Background


Began with arrest of Ernesto Miranda, a Phoenix resident, in 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda wasn't informed of his rights prior to police interrogation. Miranda, who had not finished 9th grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present.

Historical Background


At the trial the persecution's case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnap and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He appealed to the AZ Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed and upheld the conviction and then Miranda appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Legal Question


Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self incrimination violate the 5th Amendment?

The Decision
 

5 votes for Miranda, 4 votes against The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

The Decision


The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to be represented by an attorney before interrogation in police custody. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Harlan, argued that the new rules did not protect against police brutality, coercion, or other abuses of authority during custodial interrogations because officers willing to use such illegal tactics and denied their use in court were equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers.

Precedent


A suspect in police custody must be informed of the Constitutional rights before being interrogated.

Judgement and Justification



The way we would of decided the case would have been in favor of Miranda because, in the 5th amendment, it gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse to be a witness against himself. Also, in the 6th amendment citizens are guaranteed the right to an attorney.