MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Arizona police took him to the police station and interrogated him for two hours. After the interrogation, Mr. Miranda had confessed to the crimes, and provided officers with a written confession. Language at the top of the written confession stated that the confession was given freely and voluntarily without any threats or promises. In addition, the language stated that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights. However, Mr. Miranda was not advised that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation. Subsequently, the statement was entered into evidence at trial, and Mr. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to prison.
Mr. Miranda appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Arizona. The Supreme Court of Arizona found that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his constitutional rights, and his conviction was affirmed. Mr. Miranda appealed the Supreme Court of Arizona’s decision to the United States Supreme Court.
Was Mr. Miranda fully apprised of his constitutional rights when the officers failed to inform Mr. Miranda that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation?
In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Mr. Miranda was interrogated for two hours by...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document