Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Before the 1960's, the rights of people were not favored by the Supreme Court's discretion. Many times, the Supreme Court would side with the police or government institutions. The 1960's became a time of freedom for the people. 

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was taken into questioning by the police. He was one suspect of a kidnapping and rape case. After two long hours of questioning, Miranda wrote and signed a confession, which would later largely lead to his conviction in court. Miranda later appealed and claimed that his confession should be inadmissible in court. His arguments included the fact that he was coerced into his answers and the police never informed him of his right to an attorney and avoidance of self-incrimination. This case would later be named Miranda v. Arizona (1966). 

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority ruling of Miranda v. Arizona. He stated that, "no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice." Miranda's confession would not be used as evidence in a court of law, because it was illegally obtained. Therefore, Justice Warren decided that the police must inform suspects of their rights at the time of the arrest. If the suspect decides to invoke his/her rights, the interrogation must cease. This mandatory relaying of rights is now called the Miranda Rights.

Though the Miranda decision was controversial, it has helped many suspected criminals who are still entitled to their rights. This ruling equalizes the powers of the people and the government. 

By: Shelly 

 

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which was argued February 28–March 1, 1966 and decided June 13, 1966. At the end of the court rulings, the court "held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them."

In March 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for raping an 18 year old, and while under interrogation by the police he also confessed to robbery and attempted rape. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently.

When this case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that "due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them". Because of this, Miranda’s conviction was overturned.

Because of this case, the Miranda rights or warnings were made which is typically delivered as "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?"This ensured that a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment was protected so there would be no self-incrimination.

-Zack