The U. S. Constitution: Miranda

Many of us are familiar with the landmark U. S. Supreme Court case, but not necessarily the case itself, just the gift that the case gave the citizens of the United States. The name of the case was Miranda v. Arizona, and the year was 1966 ("Facts and Case Summary”). It is one of the most important Constitutional rules of criminal procedure and civil liberties. The law established the requirement that a person must be informed that they have the right to remain silent, if they have been accused of a crime, and that they have the right to receive legal representation prior to saying anything that can be used against them in a court of law. The decision was rendered by the Court in a 5 to 4 split which determined that Miranda’s confession had to be excluded ("Facts and Case Summary”).

The Miranda Warning a law enforcement officer recites to a person he intends to interrogate under custody has four key points ("What Are Your Miranda Rights?”):

1. You have the right to remain silent.

2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

3. You have the right to an attorney.

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you ("'Miranda Rights'”).

The Miranda Warning is a fundamental right every American citizen owns as a result of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation ("'Miranda Rights'”).

The Fifth Amendment protection includes the safeguard against self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment reads, in part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” ("Sixth Amendment”). 

Miranda v Arizona - What Happened?

Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, 1963, by a law enforcement officer of the Phoenix Police Department for the kidnap and rape of a eighteen year old several days before (Petrocelli). He was placed under interrogation by detectives for two hours. The evidence against him was circumstantial. Thereafter, Miranda signed a formal confession admitting that he committed the rape on a typed form which said, “I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” Miranda was never advised of his right to receive the counsel of an attorney, nor was he advised that he had the right to remain silent, and he was not told that statements that he might make could be used against him. Alvin Moore, Miranda’s court appointed attorney, objected when the state prosecutors offered Miranda’s written confession in evidence. Moore argued that Miranda’s confession was not voluntary because he was not aware of his rights and that his confession should be excluded. The defense attorney’s objection was overruled and Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. He received a sentence of 20-30 years per charge to run concurrently. Moore appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing once again that Miranda’s confession was not made voluntarily and should have been excluded. The appeals court affirmed the trial court decision, with focus on the fact that Miranda did not ask for an attorney (Petrocelli).

Moore appealed the decision to the U. S. Supreme Court (Petrocelli). Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the decision of the Court ("Facts and Case Summary”). Warren stated that as a result of the intimidating nature of police interrogation environments that a confession is not permitted in evidence pursuant to the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination clause and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney clause, unless the suspect has been provided information about his rights and has thereafter waived them. Before interrogation, a person in the custody of law enforcement has a right to remain silent; to know that anything that he says will be used against him in court; that he has a right to consultation with an attorney; that he has a right to have counsel during the interrogation; and that if he does not have the funds, that an attorney will be assigned to provide him representation. The Chief Justice went on to say that if the person in custody decides to exercise their right to remain silent, prior to or during the interrogation, the questioning must stop. If the suspect indicates that they want an attorney, the questioning must stop until the person is in their presence with the attorney. Also, the suspect must have the opportunity to confer with their lawyer and have the right to have the attorney available during any additional questioning ("Facts and Case Summary”).

In presenting his opinion, Warren referenced the practice of both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which both required providing the person the right to remain silent, and in the case of the FBI, required providing notice that the person had the right to an attorney ("Miranda v. Arizona"). There were four other justices who agreed with Warren, for a total of five justices in support of the decision. There were four justices who dissented. The dissenting justices felt that the majority was overreacting, that interrogations were not so coercive and were concerned about the effect that this interpretation would have on the ability to obtain confessions and to effectively complete interrogation ("Miranda v. Arizona").

Justice Clark partially concurred and partially dissented stating that the Warren Court’s opinion was too extreme ("Miranda v. Arizona"). Clark suggested using the “totality of the circumstances test” ("Miranda v. Arizona") to analyze the circumstances as used in Haynes v Washington as opined by Justice Goldberg where the Court would:

consider in each case whether the police officer prior to custodial interrogation added the warning that the suspect might have counsel present at the interrogation and, further, that a court would appoint one at his request if he was too poor to employ counsel. In the absence of warnings, the burden would be on the State to prove that counsel was knowingly and intelligently waived or that in the totality of the circumstances, including the failure to give the necessary warnings, the confession was clearly voluntary ("Miranda v. Arizona").

Justice Harlan dissented writing that the actions of the Warren Court were “heavy handed and one-sided” ("Miranda v. Arizona") in their view, and the Constitution did not require this either in its spirit or the letter of the law. He accused the majority of creating law rather than relying on the law as it had been intended. Justice White also dissented. Similarly, he argued that the court was creating a new constitutional right that did not exist and had no basis in fact or otherwise. He critically warned of the negative impact that such an opinion would have on the criminal process and wanted nothing to do with its consequences. He felt that killers and rapist would be returned to the streets and human dignity would be at a loss ("Miranda v. Arizona"). 

The Aftermath of Miranda

Post Miranda, law enforcement, nationwide, had to change the way they did business ("Miranda v. Arizona"). Arrested suspects had to be advised of their rights, newly named their Miranda rights. In fact, one’s Miranda rights became a verb, to Mirandize someone was another way to say that you must read the person their rights under the Supreme Court decision.

Miranda’s conviction was overturned, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, yet he was ultimately found guilty after being retried ("Facts and Case Summary”). Prosecutors were not able to use Miranda’s confession, however, they had other evidence, including testimony from witnesses, one of whom was his roommate, Twila Hoffman, who said that he had admitted to doing the crime. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping in 1967 and was sentenced to a 20-30 year term of incarceration. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona which affirmed the decision, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, an order from the court granting or denying the appellant’s request for review of their case. After serving five years, Miranda was paroled. His case was so popular within the criminal and law enforcement halls, Miranda was able to make a modest living autographing the Miranda cards that police officers carried with them, so that they would be able to properly recite the warning should they arrest a suspect. Miranda died after being stabbed in a bar in 1976. In a stroke of irony, the suspect in that case was Mirandized, he exercised his right to remain silent and then fled to Mexico. There was no evidence against the suspect, so he was released ("What Happened to Miranda?").

Since the Miranda case, other courts have ruled that if a suspect waives his rights, the waiver must be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” (Winters). Prior to interrogations, law enforcement agencies often require the signing of a Miranda waiver form, where the warning is read to the suspect again, signed and dated (Gabbidon and Greene).

Similar to the Supreme Court split, the Miranda decision was not accepted by all ("Confessions - The Continuing Controversy"). Many felt that providing a criminal with additional protections was simply not fair and served to undermine the criminal justice system and the overall goal of achieving justice for all. Former President Richard Nixon, who resigned his office in anticipation of impeachment for his suspected participation in the coverup of clandestine and illegal activities associated with the Watergate break in of the Democratic party’s headquarters in the Watergate Hotel and Office complex, in June of 1972, was one of the warning’s ardent detractors, stating that it undercut police efficiency and would lead to an increase in crime rates ("Criticism From Political Figures").

Miranda has since been carved in that a number of exceptions have been established since the original case ("What are the exceptions to Miranda?"). In Colorado v. Connelly, the court held that “Whenever the State bears the burden of proof in a motion to suppress a statement that the defendant claims was obtained in violation of our Miranda doctrine, the State need prove waiver only by a preponderance of the evidence” (Colorado v Connelley"). In Harris v New York, the court determined that “The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances. We hold, therefore, that petitioner's credibility was appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting statements” ("Harris v New York"). In Rhode Island v Innis, the court decided that "subtle compulsion" should not be equated with interrogation and its answer is not the only inquiry. "It must also be established that a suspect's incriminating response was the product of words or actions on the part of the police that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" ("Rhode Island v Innis”). In Berkemer v. McCarty, the court held that misdemeanors are subject to Miranda v Arizona, as well. ("Berkemer v. McCarty"). In New York v. Quarles, the court concluded that there is a public safety exception to the Miranda case, where there is an important concern for public safety (“New York v Quarles”). Miranda withstood a strong test of its validity in Dickerson v. United States, where providing suspects their Miranda warning was upheld and the purported federal statute overruling Miranda was struck down (Dickerson v United States)

Works Cited

"Berkemer v. McCarty." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/468/420.html>.

"Confessions - The Continuing Controversy." Jrank. Net Industries and its Licensors. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://law.jrank.org/pages/712/Confessions-continuing-controversy.html>.

"Colorado v Connelley." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. n.d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/479/157.html>.

"Criticism From Political Figures:." The Miranda Rights. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://mirandarights3.weebly.com/short-term-effects.html>.

"Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona." United States Courts. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona>.

Gabbidon, Shaun L. and Greene, Helen T. Race and Crime. New York: Sage Publications, Inc, 2008 Print.

"Harris v New York." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/222.html>.

"'Miranda Rights' and the Fifth Amendment." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html>.

"Miranda v. Arizona." Legal Information Institute. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436>.

Petrocelli, Joseph. "How It All Began: Miranda v. Arizona." Police Mag. POLICE Magazine. 11 May 2010. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2010/05/how-it-all-began-miranda-v-arizona.aspx>.

"Rhode Island v Innis." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/446/291.html>.

"Sixth Amendment - U.S. Constitution." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6.html>.

"What are the exceptions to Miranda?" Miranda Warning. MirandaWarning.org. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://www.mirandawarning.org/exceptionstomiranda.html>.

"What Are Your Miranda Rights?" Miranda Warning. MirandaWarning.org. n. d. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html>

"What Happened to Miranda?" Prosecutor's Discretion. 30 April 2012. Web. 5 September 2016. <http://prosecutorsdiscretion.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-happened-to-miranda.html>.

Winters, Robert. "Standards for a “Knowing and Intelligent Waiver” of the Right to Silence." Criminal Justice Focus. 4 January 2013. Web. 5 September 2016. <https://cjfocus.com/2013/01/04/waiver/>.