Miranda vs Arizona
The Fifth Amendment allows a person the right against self-incrimination. As well as, The Sixth Amendment gives a person the right to counsel if they are facing criminal prosecution. During the interrogation, Mr. Miranda confessed to the rape and kidnapping of the 17-year-old woman. He then proceeded to sign a written confession. It was only at the time that he signed his written confession that he signed a paper that listed his rights and the fact that he understood them. At Miranda’s trial, the arresting officers took the stand and admitted that they did not inform him of his rights.
It was also a law in Arizona at that time, that it was standard procedure to make a suspect aware of their constitutional rights. Miranda’s counsel in turn appealed his conviction at the Superior court level and failed. So they appealed the conviction at The U. S. Supreme Court of Appeals.
Only $13.90 / page
In Miranda’s appeal, Miranda’s counsel was not mitigating the fact that Miranda had admitted that he kidnapped and raped the young woman, but his confession should not be used against him in the criminal trial, because he was not aware of his right against self-incrimination, or his right to have counsel.
This case was heard before Chief Justice Earl Warren, in which four attorneys’ presented arguments. The first attorney to present his argument was Miranda’s attorney. His argument was that a man with only an eighth grade education, should not be expected to know his constitutional rights. As well as because they did not inform him of this constitutional rights, they robbed him of his due process. The second attorney to provide his argument indicated that Miranda not only willingly gave and signed his confession but moreover, was given a written document that stated his rights and was questioned if he understood them.
The third attorney to deliver his argument was from New York. He agreed that Miranda should have been informed of his right to counsel to ensure his due process. Due to the negligence on part of the arresting officers, the case should be reviewed. The final attorney to present his argument indicated that it should not be the job of the law enforcement to let a suspect know that he has the right to counsel. If he requests for counsel he should not be deprived of it, but it should not be upon the officers to offer it to him.
He also stated that an attorney should not even be allowed to be involved in a case until the conclusion of the interrogation stage. His thought process behind this was that an attorney of a suspect, should be able to defend his client, and to get his client out of the charges if they were wrongfully charged. Also by permitting the attorney to be present there would be more guilty people not being convicted based on technicalities. Upon voting, five men who voted in favor of what are now referred to as Miranda Warnings were: Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas.
The four men opposed to Miranda Warnings were Clark, Harlan, Stewart, and White. The five men in favor of this ruling believed that in order to ensure the Bill of Rights, a suspect must entirely comprehend the rights given to him. The Bill of Rights are defined as “a section or addendum in a constitution, defining the situations in which a politically organized society will permit free, spontaneous, and individual activity, and guaranteeing the governmental powers will not be used in certain ways”. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1999, pg. 160).
Also According to Black’s Law Dictionary (1999), in the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights are the first Ten Amendments. As an outcome of the Miranda v. Arizona case ruling, The Miranda Rights, came about. The Miranda Rights state that any suspect in custody of law enforcement, must be informed of their constitutional rights. More specifically, the rights included in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. As well as a result of this ruling, law enforcement officers must read the suspect their Miranda Rights prior to interrogation.
If this is not completed, any facts given by a suspect during interrogation cannot be used in court against that person. The full Miranda Rights read as “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now w/o a lawyer present, you will have the right to stop answering at any time.
You also have the right to stop answering at any time and may talk with a lawyer before deciding to speak again. Do you wish to talk or not? Do you want a lawyer? ” The Miranda rights were incorporated into due process after the ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966. In the history of law, there have been many landmark cases that have changed our due process. The Miranda case is unquestionably one of the most significant when it comes to the rights of Americans during court proceedings. The understanding of law will change as time moves on, and can be interpreted differently from person to person.
There will always be more landmark cases to come which will forever change our laws in this nation. References 1. Editor in chief Garner, B. A. , Black’s Law Dictionary, (1999), retrieved 4/17/2013 2. Schmallager, F. (2011). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century (11th ed. ) Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson/Prentice Hall Retrieved 4/17/2013 3. Landmark Cases of the U. S. Supreme Court. (n. d. ). Retrieved from http://www. streetlaw. org/en/landmark/cases/miranda_v_arizona