Miranda V Arizona Case Brief
Farwell, Benjamin CJU 134 Chp.8, Pg 286
Miranda V Arizona
FACTS: On March 16, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights, although the officers admitted at trial that Mr.Miranda was not appraised of his right to have an attorney present, and that his statement was made “without threats or promises of immunity and full understanding of my legal rights….”
ISSUE: Did the failure to explicitly notify Mr. Miranda of his right to remain silent and have legal counsel present violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
DECISION: Yes, his protection against self-incrimination was violated
OPINION: Custodial interrogations are, in and of themselves and by their very nature, persuasive and influence the conduct of those being interviewed. The detention, isolation, and control exerted over individuals in custody make them more susceptible to subtle-coercion and “…compel [him] to speak where [he] would otherwise not do so freely…” and that “…the insistence of, and confidence in his guilt make ware away at his ability to resist…” In order to ensure that the interviewee retains agency over his right against self- incrimination, an explicit statement must be made, enumerating their various rights and asking for comprehension before proceeding with the interview. This must include their right to remain silent, and a warning that anything they say can, and will be used against them; this ensures the individual understands that an adversarial process ash been initiated. The interviewee must be made aware that even if he cannot afford counsel, one will be provided for him, so that he/she understands that they are entitled to council, regardless of whether or not they can afford it. Further, should
Miranda V Arizona
FACTS: On March 16, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights, although the officers admitted at trial that Mr.Miranda was not appraised of his right to have an attorney present, and that his statement was made “without threats or promises of immunity and full understanding of my legal rights….”
ISSUE: Did the failure to explicitly notify Mr. Miranda of his right to remain silent and have legal counsel present violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
DECISION: Yes, his protection against self-incrimination was violated
OPINION: Custodial interrogations are, in and of themselves and by their very nature, persuasive and influence the conduct of those being interviewed. The detention, isolation, and control exerted over individuals in custody make them more susceptible to subtle-coercion and “…compel [him] to speak where [he] would otherwise not do so freely…” and that “…the insistence of, and confidence in his guilt make ware away at his ability to resist…” In order to ensure that the interviewee retains agency over his right against self- incrimination, an explicit statement must be made, enumerating their various rights and asking for comprehension before proceeding with the interview. This must include their right to remain silent, and a warning that anything they say can, and will be used against them; this ensures the individual understands that an adversarial process ash been initiated. The interviewee must be made aware that even if he cannot afford counsel, one will be provided for him, so that he/she understands that they are entitled to council, regardless of whether or not they can afford it. Further, should