In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) culminated in the famed “Miranda rights” requirement during arrests.
On March 13, 1963, police arrested Ernesto Miranda on charges of rape and kidnapping after a witness identified him in Phoenix, Arizona. During his two-hour interrogation, police did not advise Miranda on his constitutional rights to an attorney nor against self-incrimination. Nonetheless, he signed a written confession affirming knowledge of these rights and admitting to crimes. This confession led to a June 27, 1963 conviction of rape and kidnapping as well as a robbery pending on Miranda’s record. Judge McFate sentenced Miranda to a maximum fifty-five years in prison.Miranda’s lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the lower court’s decision, arguing that police had not violated Miranda’s constitutional rights in procuring a confession without the presence of a lawyer.
The Supreme Court ruled differently on June 13, 1966. It held that presenting Miranda’s confession as evidence violated his constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. The 5th Amendment protects from self-incrimination and requires the police to inform the detainee about his or her rights while the 6th guarantees criminal suspects rights to a personal or state issued attorney. Chief Justice Earl Warren articulated that the court permitted confessions or self-incriminating statements in criminal trials only when suspects issued them deliberately after police inform of their rights. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) included four dissenters and three separate dissenting opinions.
After Arizona’s ruling was overturned, the state court retried the case without presenting Miranda’s confession. They convicted him of the same charges, and sentenced him to a maximum 30 years in prison. Four years after his release on parole, a killer, who did receive his Miranda rights, stabbed Miranda to death.
The Four Miranda Warnings
- 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 an attorney.
- If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
Timeline
| March 3, 1963 | Phoenix police arrest Miranda on charges of rape, kidnapping, and robbery. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signs a written confession. |
|---|---|
| March 27, 1963 | The court denies Miranda legal representation at a preliminary hearing. |
| June 12, 1965 | Alvin Moore appeals Miranda’s case to the Supreme Court of Arizona claiming his constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment had been violated. The state of Arizona reaffirms Miranda’s conviction. Miranda appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. |
| November15,1965 | The U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear Miranda’s case. |
| February 28, 1966 | Lawyers argue Miranda v. Arizona before the Supreme Court. |
| June 12, 1966 | Chief Justice Earl Warren delivers his decision, ruling Miranda’s confession is illegitimate and holding that Miranda’s constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment were violated. |
| February 15, 1967 | Miranda’s second trial commences and lasts nine days. |
| March 1, 1967 | Arizona juryfinds Miranda guilty of rape, kidnapping, and robbery without his confession and the judge sentences him to a maximum 30 years in prison. |
| 1972 | Miranda is released from prison on parole. |
| January31,1976 | A killer, who receives his Miranda rights, stabs Miranda to death. |
Resources
As a legal expert with a deep understanding of constitutional law and criminal procedure, I bring to you a comprehensive analysis of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and its profound implications on the rights of arrested individuals in the United States.
Miranda v. Arizona represents a pivotal moment in the history of criminal justice, shaping the legal landscape surrounding the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. The case originated with the arrest of Ernesto Miranda on charges of rape and kidnapping in Phoenix, Arizona, on March 13, 1963.
During Miranda's interrogation, which lasted for two hours, the police failed to inform him of his constitutional rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Despite this omission, Miranda signed a written confession acknowledging his awareness of these rights and admitting to the crimes. This confession played a central role in his 1963 conviction.
Miranda's lawyer, Alvin Moore, pursued the case through the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction, contending that the police had not violated Miranda's constitutional rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision on June 13, 1966, reached a different conclusion.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, articulating the majority opinion, held that presenting Miranda's confession as evidence violated his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. The 5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination, requiring law enforcement to inform detainees of their rights, while the 6th guarantees the right to an attorney. The Court established that confessions or self-incriminating statements are admissible only when suspects provide them voluntarily after being informed of their rights.
The aftermath of Miranda v. Arizona led to the establishment of what is now commonly known as the "Miranda rights." These rights include the following four warnings:
- 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 an attorney.
- If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
The timeline of events in Miranda's case, from his arrest in 1963 to his release on parole in 1972 and subsequent tragic death in 1976, further underscores the legal and personal ramifications of this landmark decision.
In conclusion, Miranda v. Arizona stands as a cornerstone in the protection of individual rights during police interrogations, leaving an indelible mark on the criminal justice system in the United States. The Miranda rights continue to be a fundamental aspect of law enforcement practices, ensuring that individuals are aware of their constitutional rights when facing custodial interrogation.
