Suspects Have a Right to Be Silent

Miranda v. Arizona In the original case involving Miranda v. Arizona, 22-year-old Ernesto Miranda stood accused of the rape of an 18-year-old female (and kidnapping and robbery). The arrest happened on March 18, 1963. Miranda was arrested in his home and taken to a Phoenix police station, where he was interrogated and given a confession to sign -- which he did sign.

On that confession, the police had typed in that Miranda fully understood his legal rights even though he was not notified that he had the right to remain silent (by not incriminating himself) and he had the right to legal counsel. Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. This was an example of a heavy-handed strategy used by Phoenix police against a Latino man who was not fully mentally sound, according to the literature on the case. Miranda v. Arizona -- the broader implications and the U.S.

Supreme Court Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court heard an appeal from Miranda's attorney -- that his constitutional rights had been abused. And on June 13, 1966, the High Court made an historic ruling that is considered one of the most important decisions regarding justice in the history of the United States. The Court ruled that the 5th Amendment to the Constitution requires that a suspect be informed of his or her right to not speak to law enforcement officials; i.e., the right to remain silent.

Hence, in legal situations (not necessarily arrests) a person on the spot can "Take the Fifth," or in other words, can refuse to speak to the issue in fear of self-incrimination (Shay, 2012). Also, the 6th Amendment ensures the right to a fair trial (i.e., due process) which Miranda clearly did not receive. The Justices voted 5-4 in a ruling that Miranda's confession was "…not admissible evidence in the criminal trial" since the Phoenix police failed to inform him of his rights (Shay, p. 1).

Interestingly, the High Court decided to hear three cases along with the Miranda ruling, since the other three cases involved similar circumstances. In Vignera v. New York, the police in New York City arrested a suspect that was accused of robbing a dress shop. Shortly thereafter he was taken to a police station where he "…orally admitted to the robbery" and was officially placed under arrest (uscourts.gov). In Westover v.

United States a suspect was arrested because he was suspected of being involved in a pair of robberies in the Kansas City area. After being interrogated twice by local police, then he was also interrogated for two-and-a-half hours by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Westover was apparently also wanted on a felony charge in California). After these rigorous interrogations, Westover signed two confessions, one for each of the alleged robberies in Kansas City and California. He was convicted and given 15 years in prison (uscourts.gov). In California v.

Stewart, the third case the High Court took under advisement in 1966, the suspect was involved in a purse-snatching case and was interrogated nine times while in a cell in Kansas City. In none of those nine interrogations was Steward advised he had the right to remain silent.

Taking ruling on these four cases together, the High Court asserted that "…there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves" (uscourts.gov). A defendant must be "warned prior to any questioning" that he has the right to be silent, the Court continued (uscourts.gov).

It is amazing, forty-five years after the Miranda ruling, to realize that the vote of the High Court was a split decision. In hindsight it seems very fair and just that a suspect should be notified of his rights. But the vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice Earl Warren (who wrote the majority opinion), and Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan and Fortas.