Miranda v. Arizona
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for robbery March 1963 in Phoenix, AZ. While in custody he confessed to recently raping an 18 year old woman . In a police lineup the victim identified him. The police then interrogated him for hours without informing him of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, or of the Sixth Amendment which provides the right to an attorney.
Miranda was convicted of the rape and kidnapping -and given a sentence of 20-30 years for each charge. During trial Miranda did had a court appointed lawyer, John J. Flynn, who appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court. Flynn argued that the confession he gave when in police custody should have been excluded from the trial since he was not properly informed of his rights. This was not Miranda's first conviction, and the court took the position that he should have been aware of his rights anyway since he had been through the system for the earlier conviction. The court denied the appeal.
Earlier decisions of the U.S Supreme Court set the precedent for actions that were ignored in the Miranda conviction. In Brown v. Mississippi (1936) the court ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected people from forced convictions. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Courts maintained that persons accused of felonies have the right to consult with an attorney even if they cannot afford one.
Even with these previous rulings in place the question of importance in the Miranda case was whether the police had the responsibility to inform Miranda that he had these rights. Having rights afforded from the laws of the land is one thing, but knowing you have them is another.
The Miranda case's appeal path brought it to the U.S Supreme Court who decided to hear the casse. In fact the Miranda case was combined with three other similar cases but since Miranda was the first of the four, the outcome has become synonymous with Miranda which has more or less become a household name and carries a specific meaning of now required police procedure.
Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the Court, ruling that it was of a coercive nature that Miranda had confessed his crimes. Miranda's conviction was overturned.
The court opinion stated:
Further...
The Miranda case and appeal permanently changed police procedure and coined terms such as having a person be "mirandasized."
Read more:
Miranda was convicted of the rape and kidnapping -and given a sentence of 20-30 years for each charge. During trial Miranda did had a court appointed lawyer, John J. Flynn, who appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court. Flynn argued that the confession he gave when in police custody should have been excluded from the trial since he was not properly informed of his rights. This was not Miranda's first conviction, and the court took the position that he should have been aware of his rights anyway since he had been through the system for the earlier conviction. The court denied the appeal.
Earlier decisions of the U.S Supreme Court set the precedent for actions that were ignored in the Miranda conviction. In Brown v. Mississippi (1936) the court ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected people from forced convictions. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Courts maintained that persons accused of felonies have the right to consult with an attorney even if they cannot afford one.
Even with these previous rulings in place the question of importance in the Miranda case was whether the police had the responsibility to inform Miranda that he had these rights. Having rights afforded from the laws of the land is one thing, but knowing you have them is another.
The Miranda case's appeal path brought it to the U.S Supreme Court who decided to hear the casse. In fact the Miranda case was combined with three other similar cases but since Miranda was the first of the four, the outcome has become synonymous with Miranda which has more or less become a household name and carries a specific meaning of now required police procedure.
Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the Court, ruling that it was of a coercive nature that Miranda had confessed his crimes. Miranda's conviction was overturned.
The court opinion stated:
The person in custody, must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right ot remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed of that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
Further...
If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior or during the questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.
The Miranda case and appeal permanently changed police procedure and coined terms such as having a person be "mirandasized."
Read more: