Miranda v. Arizona

"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 present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?"

Everyone knows the Miranda Rights, from hearing them on TV, movies, any type of police footage, it's a well known fraze. But where it came from is sometimes forgotten to those not in tune with the Supreme Court System. One of the most impacting Supreme Court cases in history, Miranda v. Arizona, changed not only peoples rights under the Constitution, but the way that Police had to interact with their suspects.

The issue started in 1963, in Phoenix Arizona, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. The main problem was while the police were interrogating him, he signed a confession that led to his conviction. His conviction was "largely based on his confession", obviously. Ernesto Miranda then appealed to a higher court in Arizona because he claimed that his Fifth Amendment Rights to self incrimination had been violated; that they not only were for the court room, but for the interrogation times as well. Since the police had never once mentioned his right to an attorney or any of his other rights, such as the right to remain silent, his case was allowed.

His lawyer, John J. Flyn, had appealed to the Arizona State Supreme Court, who concluded that the lower courts ruling was still standing. The State Supreme Court Argued that Ernesto Miranda had not asked for a lawyer, and it was not the police's job to do so. John Flyn and Miranda then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which was heard on February twenty first, 1996. On June thirteenth, 1966, the Supreme Court made their decision. In a 5-4 vote, a majoirty ruled in Miranda's favor. They had overturned his convivction, making him a free man, while also now enforcing a rule that police had to legally inform a suspect of his rights as soon as he was in questioning.

For the majority, Cheif Justice Earl Warren made clear the information that police had to inform suspects of. He quotes, "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." He did not put specific words in the police's mouth, but gave them an overall understanding of what they had to say. Today, police have a regularly rehearsed way of saying the Miranda Rights, and have to every time they have a suspect in custody.

Although back then it was a contraversial case, today it's a widly accepted police practice. Other cases such as Dicerson v. United States, have come to the suprme court, dealing witht the same issue as Miranda, but all have been ruled in favor of upholding the Miranda case. Cheif Justice Rehnquist said, "There is no justification here for overruling Miranda. Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where warnings have become part of our national culture."


By: Zoe.
Palatial.