Miranda vs. Arizona the Miranda

Miranda vs. Arizona

The Miranda rule makes it illegal for a suspect to incriminate themselves or even to make any sort of a confession unless they were properly advised of their rights with the phrase "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Miranda v. Arizona, however, a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision remains the subject of debate, continued commentary, and part of the legal and sociological literature surrounding the intent of Miranda.

The facts of the case show that on March 13, 1963, eight dollars was stolen from a Phoenix, Arizona bank clerk. Two weeks earlier, an 18-year-old mentally disturbed woman was kidnapped and raped in the nearby area. Police detained a 23-year-old Hispanic man, Ernesto Miranda, in the theft case, but did not yet have a suspect in the rape case. Mr. Miranda was questioned about the theft, but was not apprised of his rights, nor was he offered an attorney. During the process of questioning, he not only confessed to the theft, but also to the rape and kidnapping. Subsequently, he was arrested, convicted of kidnapping and rape, and sentenced to a 20-year prison term (Vanmeter, 2006).

However, for some reason, when Miranda was arrested, the officers refrained from advising him of his 5th Amendment Rights. Miranda's court-appointed lawyer, John Flynn, appealed the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court, who said in their affirming decision that Miranda had "not specifically requested an attorney prior to being questioned." Flynn and a group of lawyers who were dissatisfied with this opinion propelled the case forward to the U.S. Supreme Court, who heard arguments early in 1966, and released its decision in June of the same year (Longley, 2004).

In a split decision, 6-3, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 reversed the Arizona Court's decision, and granted Mr. Miranda a new trial in which his confession was deemed inadmissible. This established the "Miranda Rights" of persons accused of crime. During their arguments to the Supreme Court, Miranda's lawyers focused on the fact that the arresting officers not only did not indicate anything he said could be used against him, but that he had the right to be represented by an attorney, and if he could not afford one, an attorney would be supplied to him. The Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for the decision, indicated that the primary reason Miranda was overturned was:

The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him (U.S. Supreme Court).

Following this case, police departments were now required to inform every arrested person of their rights under the law, now called a "Miranda Warning." Many conservatives believed that it was unfair and unnecessary to inform suspects of their rights, rights they should know if an American Citizen. Even President Richard Nixon believed that Miranda made it easier on criminals and harder on police. This view held that the rule would increase crime, and caused Nixon to state that he would appoint Judges who were "strict constructionists," and who would exercise judicial restraint (Burgen, 2006). There are three exceptions to the Miranda rule, though:

The routine booking question -- police may ask standard booking questions without needing Miranda.

Police hostage negotiations are not interrogations and therefore exempt.

The jailhouse informant exception or a secretly taped meeting between a suspect and police office in which the suspect attended voluntarily are not subject to Miranda; or while in custody, Miranda is not required if the suspect is unaware that they are voluntarily talking to a police officer