Miranda v Arizona

Have you ever heard the phrase “you have the right to remain silent”? The frequently heard phrase is the result of a constitutional issue between the criminal and the prosecutors. This issues was addressed in the case of Miranda v. Arizona and the decision still has an impact on us today.

The case began in 1963 with the arrest of Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The key detail of his arrest was that he was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation; during the interrogation, Miranda confessed to committing the crime while the police were confessing. In court, Miranda had no counsel and the prosecution’s case consisted solely of his confession. The court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced him to 20-30 years in jail. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, explaining that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. However, the court disagreed so Miranda brought his case to the Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that the prosecution could use Miranda’s confessions as evidence in the trial because the police did not inform Miranda of his rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Warren explained that the police are obligated by the Fifth amendment and Sixth amendment to give these warnings to a criminal suspect. The Fifth amendment gives criminal suspects the right to refuse being a witness against himself and the Sixth amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney. The Court believes that the defendant’s right against self-incrimination has been part of the Anglo-american law and without it, it would lead to government abuse. If criminals were not protected against self-incrimination, then continued police violence could compel suspects to confess against themselves. The Court reasoned that this deprives criminals of basic liberties and can lead to false confessions. As explained by Warren, the defendant’s right to an attorney in interrogations enables “defendants under otherwise compelling circumstances to tell his story without fear.” So, in order to protect these rights, the Court created statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained. The statement is called “Miranda Rights”, aptly named, and contains the right to remain silent and the phrase “anything said can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law. The police also have state that the criminal have a right to an attorney.