Miranda Rights

Although most people have some familiarity with the phrase 'Miranda Rights', most people are unfamiliar with the true origins of the Miranda Warning, which is often referred to as the right to remain silent.

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. Miranda was taken into custody by the police, and transported him to a Phoenix police station. The witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then led to the interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to question him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the right to an attorney to be present during the questioning. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Located on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession "with full knowledge of my legal rights understanding any statement I make may be used against me."

When Miranda's case went to trial, the prosecution used the written confession as evidence against him. The defense objected, asking for the evidence to be suppressed. However, the judge allowed the confession to be admitted. Miranda was convicted of all counts, which consisted of kidnapping and rape. On each count he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years, with the sentences running concurrently. On Miranda's first appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that his rights had not been violated by the admission of the confession, and therefore affirmed the conviction. The basis for the decision was connected to the fact that Miranda never specifically requested counsel.

Miranda eventually appealed his case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that based off the testimony given by the police officers, and the admission of Miranda, it was obvious that Miranda had never been told in any form of his right to an attorney, or his right to have one during his questioning. The court also stated that Miranda was never informed of his right to not be compelled to incriminate himself. The Court also stated that without these warnings, all statement from Miranda were inadmissible. They went on to rule that, just because the confession had a typed statement saying Miranda had full knowledge of his rights, never reaches the level needed for one to intelligently waive their Constitutional Rights. Based on this information, the Supreme Court reversed the decision.

The decision in Miranda stands for the proposition that the prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). This means that any time a person is in custody and subject to interrogation, the police must apprise the person of his rights, or the statements are inadmissible in court.

These 'Miranda Rights' have certainly revolutionized the way police interact with suspects. Subsequent Supreme Court cases have helped to further define the rights of the accused when interacting with law enforcement, however, Miranda remains one of the most influential and important Supreme Court decisions.