Miranda v Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was indicted for the rape and kidnapping of a young woman. He then signed a confession after a lengthy interrogation that was later used to convict him. Through this entire process, his rights of having an attorney or refraining from self-incrimination (guilty statement regarding self) was never disclosed to him. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment states that ”no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, which would have allowed for a proper trial in Miranda’s case.
Breakdown Verdict.
In a 5-4 verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed Miranda’s argument. Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion, establishing that a proper incrimination process would involve disclosure of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The majority saw communication as a key part of the judicial process so that false incrimination would be prevented. The dissenting saw that there were already admissibility rules within the system that could determine whether a confession could be used.
Result Going Forward.
A famous phrase, the Miranda Warning is read to people who are in custody and are to undergo interrogation. It is now a key process of the justice system that protects individual freedoms while ensuring that confessions are not coerced. Miranda v Arizona does not defend guilty individuals, but it provides the reminder that interrogation should not mean incrimination.
Do you agree with the verdict?
0%
0%