CourtCaseProject
Miranda vs Arizona
In 1963, Phoenix, Arizona resident, Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Ernesto, who did not finish ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, confessed to police after they had failed to read him his rights, including his right to an attorney. After being found guilty by the court, Ernesto was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Ernesto then appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court stating that law enforcement unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed and the conviction stood. In 1966, the U.S Supreme Court reviewed Ernesto’s case and declared in a 5-4 decision that Ernesto’s rights had been violated under the Fifth Amendment which prohibits forced self-incrimination and gives the right to due process. This case resulted in the “Miranda Rights”. The Miranda Rights are rights that are read to a person during the process of being arrested. During each arrest the police officer must recite the following, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you, if you so choose.” They then continue to recite the “Intelligent Waiver” that was included to confirm a person’s ability to understand the rights that were indicated to them by the law enforcement official, “Do you understand each of these rights as I have explained them to you? Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?” Miranda v Arizona affects any person who could be arrested. Any violation of the Miranda Law would result in immediate suppression of evidence.
Case Summary
Case Analysis
Decision: 5 votes for Miranda 4 against
Dissenting Opinion Summary
Majority Decision Summary
"I believe the decision of the Court represents poor constitutional law and entails harmful consequences for the country at large. How serious these consequences may prove to be only time can tell." - Mr. Justice Harlan, with Justices Stewart and White
The Dissenting Opinion, written by Justice Harlan, Justice Stewart and Justice White, wrote that the confession that Miranda gave was admissible because he wrote and signed the confession with, what appeared to be, a full understanding of what he was doing. The argument that is also made is that law should not be changed, especially due to a case in which the defendant may or may not have been aware of the rights that he had as a citizen.
Miranda v Arizona, firstly, is a hard case to come to terms with for one sole reason, Ernesto Miranda was an admitted rapist, kidnapper, and thief. However, throughout the case Ernesto's intelligence and mental capability was put into question. Was he in fact aware of his rights and were his actions due to his mental instability? Agreeable as it may be that it is a police officer's duty to inform the arrestee of his/her rights it can not be said that the decision to release Ernesto was morally agreeable and perhaps that is where the judicial system is flawed. The Majority Decision, although faced with the same moral strife, came to the conclusion that to protect the rights of all people Ernesto must be given his right to due process no matter his level of intelligence. This case, as sensitive as it may be, changed the conduct of police officers everywhere. In order to prevent another criminal from being released due to a violation of his/her rights law officials are sure to recite the "Miranda Rights".
"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." - Chief Justice Warren
Chief Justice Warren, wrote for the Majority Decision. In his statement he believes that the Fifth Amendment, as well as all the Amendments, is the back bone of our country. The rights that people have and the responsibilities that the law has to protect them should always be taken into account. He states that it would be wrong to deny Miranda his rights as given to him in the Fifth Amendment and to allow fair judgment his confession should be dismissed and he should be released. However, in saying this, the Majority decision made it clear that they expect changes to be made to prevent a case such as this to occur again.