Okla-homey
6/13/2008, 06:02 AM
June 13, 1966: US Supreme Court Decides Miranda v. Arizona
Forty-two years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down a very important decision. Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was a landmark case in the field of criminal procedure. In Miranda, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a set of specific rights anyone under "custodial arrest." The "Miranda Warning," named after Ernesto Miranda, one of the petitioners in the case, is a list of rights that a law enforcement officer must read to anyone arrested for an alleged criminal act.
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7161/brethren02a7tm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The Warren Court. Front: John Marshall Harlan, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr. Second row: Abe Fortas, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall
Before the Court's decision in Miranda, the law governing custodial interrogation of criminal suspects varied from state to state. In many states statements made by criminal defendants who were in custody and under interrogation by law enforcement officials were admissible as evidence at trial, even though the defendants had not been advised of their legal rights.
Prior to Miranda, the basic legal rights for criminal defendants subjected to custodial interrogation included the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, but the cops didn't have to tell the arrestee he has these rights.
Miranda involved four criminal defendants. Each of the defendants was appealing a conviction based in part on the failure of law enforcement officers to advise him, prior to custodial interrogation, of his right to an attorney or his right to remain silent.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9514/mirandaphoto4al.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Ernesto Miranda's booking photo
Ernesto Miranda was a 25 year old Arizona native who had been dishonorably discharged from the US Army and had done time for various fairly minor criminal offenses. In short, he was a small time crook and drifter. He was the first defendant listed in the case, and had been arrested on March 18, 1963, at his home in Arizona and taken to a Phoenix police station.
At the station, witnesses identified Miranda as a rapist. Police then took Miranda to an interrogation room where he was questioned by two police officers.
The officers did not tell Miranda that he had a right to an attorney, and Miranda confessed to the crime in two hours. Miranda wrote a confession on a piece of paper and signed the paper. At the top of the paper was a typed statement saying that Miranda had made the confession voluntarily and with full knowledge of his legal rights. Miranda was subsequently convicted of rape and kidnapping in an Arizona state court.
The circumstances involving the other three defendants were similar, all three confessing after a period of custodial interrogation without the benefit of legal counsel.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from all four defendants, joining the appeals into a single review. A divided Court affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court's decision against one of the defendants and reversed the guilty verdicts against Miranda and the other two. Miranda was retried, and this time the police did not use the confession but called witnesses and used other evidence. Miranda was convicted, and served 11 years.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, began with a review of police interrogation activities and a detailed formulation of new rules for law enforcement personnel.
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/3615/11015707014005ht.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The opening of the Miranda majority opinion set a grave tone:
The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6913/b2110301016504vg.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Page one of three page internal Court memo framing the issue
The Court described in detail the unfairness and coercion used by some law enforcement officers engaged in interrogation. The majority also took note of deceptive practices in interrogation. For example, officers would put a suspect in a lineup and tell her that she had been identified as a suspect in the instant crime as well as other crimes even though no such identifications had taken place.
The suspect would confess to the instant crime to avoid being prosecuted for the fictitious crimes. The majority noted that these examples were exceptions, but it also stated that they were sufficiently widespread to warrant concern.
The Court then outlined the now-familiar procedures that law enforcement officers would have to follow thereafter. They would have to tell persons in custody that they have the right to remain silent, that they have the right to an attorney, that if they cannot afford an attorney the court will appoint an attorney, and that anything they say or do can be used in a criminal prosecution.
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2051/c82087596504ml.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Miranda case SCOTUS docket sheet showing how they voted
In summary, generally speaking, whether you "did it" or not, its usually best to keep your mouth shut and "lawyer up."
Important to note however, Miranda does not protect detainees from standard booking questions: name, date of birth, address, and the like. Also, persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol do not have Miranda rights prior to blood alcohol tests.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6193/damirandagrave4qk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Ernesto Miranda is buried in his home town of Phoenix. After he served his 11 year sentence, he was killed in a bar fight. When his killer was questioned about the crime, the guy invoked his Miranda rights. srsly.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8475/insane7zo4ds.jpg
Forty-two years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down a very important decision. Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was a landmark case in the field of criminal procedure. In Miranda, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a set of specific rights anyone under "custodial arrest." The "Miranda Warning," named after Ernesto Miranda, one of the petitioners in the case, is a list of rights that a law enforcement officer must read to anyone arrested for an alleged criminal act.
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7161/brethren02a7tm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The Warren Court. Front: John Marshall Harlan, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr. Second row: Abe Fortas, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall
Before the Court's decision in Miranda, the law governing custodial interrogation of criminal suspects varied from state to state. In many states statements made by criminal defendants who were in custody and under interrogation by law enforcement officials were admissible as evidence at trial, even though the defendants had not been advised of their legal rights.
Prior to Miranda, the basic legal rights for criminal defendants subjected to custodial interrogation included the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, but the cops didn't have to tell the arrestee he has these rights.
Miranda involved four criminal defendants. Each of the defendants was appealing a conviction based in part on the failure of law enforcement officers to advise him, prior to custodial interrogation, of his right to an attorney or his right to remain silent.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9514/mirandaphoto4al.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Ernesto Miranda's booking photo
Ernesto Miranda was a 25 year old Arizona native who had been dishonorably discharged from the US Army and had done time for various fairly minor criminal offenses. In short, he was a small time crook and drifter. He was the first defendant listed in the case, and had been arrested on March 18, 1963, at his home in Arizona and taken to a Phoenix police station.
At the station, witnesses identified Miranda as a rapist. Police then took Miranda to an interrogation room where he was questioned by two police officers.
The officers did not tell Miranda that he had a right to an attorney, and Miranda confessed to the crime in two hours. Miranda wrote a confession on a piece of paper and signed the paper. At the top of the paper was a typed statement saying that Miranda had made the confession voluntarily and with full knowledge of his legal rights. Miranda was subsequently convicted of rape and kidnapping in an Arizona state court.
The circumstances involving the other three defendants were similar, all three confessing after a period of custodial interrogation without the benefit of legal counsel.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from all four defendants, joining the appeals into a single review. A divided Court affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court's decision against one of the defendants and reversed the guilty verdicts against Miranda and the other two. Miranda was retried, and this time the police did not use the confession but called witnesses and used other evidence. Miranda was convicted, and served 11 years.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, began with a review of police interrogation activities and a detailed formulation of new rules for law enforcement personnel.
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/3615/11015707014005ht.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The opening of the Miranda majority opinion set a grave tone:
The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6913/b2110301016504vg.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Page one of three page internal Court memo framing the issue
The Court described in detail the unfairness and coercion used by some law enforcement officers engaged in interrogation. The majority also took note of deceptive practices in interrogation. For example, officers would put a suspect in a lineup and tell her that she had been identified as a suspect in the instant crime as well as other crimes even though no such identifications had taken place.
The suspect would confess to the instant crime to avoid being prosecuted for the fictitious crimes. The majority noted that these examples were exceptions, but it also stated that they were sufficiently widespread to warrant concern.
The Court then outlined the now-familiar procedures that law enforcement officers would have to follow thereafter. They would have to tell persons in custody that they have the right to remain silent, that they have the right to an attorney, that if they cannot afford an attorney the court will appoint an attorney, and that anything they say or do can be used in a criminal prosecution.
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2051/c82087596504ml.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Miranda case SCOTUS docket sheet showing how they voted
In summary, generally speaking, whether you "did it" or not, its usually best to keep your mouth shut and "lawyer up."
Important to note however, Miranda does not protect detainees from standard booking questions: name, date of birth, address, and the like. Also, persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol do not have Miranda rights prior to blood alcohol tests.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6193/damirandagrave4qk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Ernesto Miranda is buried in his home town of Phoenix. After he served his 11 year sentence, he was killed in a bar fight. When his killer was questioned about the crime, the guy invoked his Miranda rights. srsly.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8475/insane7zo4ds.jpg