This blog entry provides some interesting (and opinionated) insight into why the Miranda decision is problematic. (Reader should note that the blog is maintained/written/owned by a law firm)
"My Problem and solution with the miranda right to counsel"
The following link leads to a series of humorous comics regarding supreme court rulings, including Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, and Gideon v. Wainwright.
"Cartoon Case match-up"
An online version of the actual writ of certiorari used in the appeal's process for the Miranda v. Arizona case:
Caselaw: Miranda v. Arizona Writ of Certiorari
An educational video explaining when and how the Miranda warning applies:
The Miranda Warning
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Case Background
The case of Ernesto Arturo Miranda seemed pretty straight forward: in March of 1963, arrested for robbery, he eventually confessed, additionally, to the rape of an eighteen year old girl two days prior to the initial alledged charge. This confession, along with positive identification of Miranda by the indicated victim, led to his conviction and sentencing of 20 to 30 years--on the charges of both kidnapping and rape, to be served concurrently.
Despite his guilt being both evident and clear, however, there was a legal trip-up that his court appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, made note of and thus made use of in appealing to the Arizona Supreme court: Ernesto Miranda never had a lawyer present during his interrogation, nor was he informed of his fifth ammendment rights after self-incrimination. The Arizona Supreme court upheld the initial ruling, stating that Miranda had not requested an attorney--and so, the case was appealed again, this time to the federal Supreme Court.
One of the reasons this case came to be is due to the 1960s legal aid movement, which was mostly concerned with the overly manipulative and at times abusive methods used by police to secure confessions--methods which, in the case of a guilty suspect, do not respect that suspects rights to fair process, or, in the case of an innocent suspect, may render an inaccurate or false confession due to the pressures applied in a police-controlled environment. These tactics were referred to as the "third degree", denoted by wikipedia as being "a euphemism for the 'inflicting of pain, physical or mental, to extract confessions or statements'", the use of which was wide-spread especially during the 1930s--the origins or slang connotations/reference of the term is unknown, however, with various theories surrounding it.
Miranda Goes to the Supreme Court
When Ernesto Miranda’s case was accepted into the U.S. Supreme Court via writ of certiorari, one of the main motifs of crime TV shows was set for good. Ever watched Law & Order and heard Lenny Brisco say, “You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney…”? That started with Miranda v. Arizona when the ruling was passed down in 1966.
As circumstances spun for Mr. Miranda, he ended up incriminating himself during interrogation without being aware of his right to an attorney. Two hours of questioning later, the police had a signed statement of confession from Miranda for the rape of an eighteen-year-old woman two days earlier, and he was subsequently convicted and sentenced for 20-30 years in prison. His attorney appealed, of course, sending the case to the Arizona Supreme Court, who reaffirmed the conviction, stating that he ought to have already known of his right to counsel, as he had been previously convicted of another, unrelated crime.
When the case entered the Supreme Court (along with three other, similar cases [Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart]) it was pointed out fairly quickly that several previous cases had determined the existence of constitutional rights for protection against self-incrimination and the counsel of an attorney (Fifth and Sixth Amendments, respectively). The Court ruled in favor of Miranda, stating that a suspect must be made aware of his/her rights to protection against self-incrimination and an attorney, though, under conference, Justices Tom C. Clark, John Harlan, and Byron White dissented.
After the ruling was passed, consequences abounded. It was set in stone that a suspect’s Miranda rights (so named because Miranda v. Arizona was first listed in the group of four cases through which the final ruling was got) must be read prior to questioning. It was debated thoroughly, namely by President Nixon, that such a requirement would limit the efficiency of the police, and that crime rates would go up, as a defendant could simply call on their right to silence and refuse to speak until an attorney was present to guide them into further silence. Still, the rights stood.
As the ruling stands today, any and all suspects being arrested and brought in for questioning must have the following read to them in order to make them aware of their Miranda rights:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”
As circumstances spun for Mr. Miranda, he ended up incriminating himself during interrogation without being aware of his right to an attorney. Two hours of questioning later, the police had a signed statement of confession from Miranda for the rape of an eighteen-year-old woman two days earlier, and he was subsequently convicted and sentenced for 20-30 years in prison. His attorney appealed, of course, sending the case to the Arizona Supreme Court, who reaffirmed the conviction, stating that he ought to have already known of his right to counsel, as he had been previously convicted of another, unrelated crime.
When the case entered the Supreme Court (along with three other, similar cases [Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart]) it was pointed out fairly quickly that several previous cases had determined the existence of constitutional rights for protection against self-incrimination and the counsel of an attorney (Fifth and Sixth Amendments, respectively). The Court ruled in favor of Miranda, stating that a suspect must be made aware of his/her rights to protection against self-incrimination and an attorney, though, under conference, Justices Tom C. Clark, John Harlan, and Byron White dissented.
After the ruling was passed, consequences abounded. It was set in stone that a suspect’s Miranda rights (so named because Miranda v. Arizona was first listed in the group of four cases through which the final ruling was got) must be read prior to questioning. It was debated thoroughly, namely by President Nixon, that such a requirement would limit the efficiency of the police, and that crime rates would go up, as a defendant could simply call on their right to silence and refuse to speak until an attorney was present to guide them into further silence. Still, the rights stood.
As the ruling stands today, any and all suspects being arrested and brought in for questioning must have the following read to them in order to make them aware of their Miranda rights:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)