Miranda v. Arizona 1966 - Term Paper Example

Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested because there was evidence that had been found which linked him to a kidnapping and rape case of an 18 year old girl. After having spent two hours in custody, Miranda signed a confession statement which stated that he was responsible for the rape of the girl and that he made this statement voluntarily. Though at the time Miranda was not told about his legal rights or his rights to remain silent or that whatsoever he says will be used against him legally and in court before he had been asked out to write out the confession that he had given orally. When in trial, the lawyer representing Miranda objected to the confessional statement because the confession that Miranda had made was not made voluntarily. Miranda was still convicted of rape and kidnapping because of the evidence that had been found against him. In result, the lawyer filed for an appeal in which he stated that the confession that had been made was not voluntary and should not have been included in the court trial. Questions from legal authorities came up about whether or not a confession is acceptable in the court if it has been taken without the warnings of what he says might be result to him getting in more trouble or the rights that the suspect is given in such situations according to the 5th and 6th amendments. [Mir05]. Also about what the general standard of judging confessions has become. Miranda was cleared violated of his 5th amendment right to remain silent and the 6th amendment which was the right to have legal counsel. The confessions were illegally obtained and should have been discarded. That led to the conviction being faulty and that Miranda should have gotten a re-trial. Chief Justice Warren declared that the state should have used the proper procedure before sentencing the suspect. Because of not having used a proper channel to get the confessions, Warren states that they could easily be discarded according to the law. The suspect should always be able to not incriminate himself in such a situation. Miranda was not given his legal rights and was not allowed to consult with an attorney during the time of interrogation. Without these rights, his statement which even had the typed in clause that he was responsible and knew entirely of his legal rights was inadmissible. [Mir05]. Miranda had the right to the presence of an attorney and if he could not afford one then one would be appointed to him before any of the questioning began if he desired. This is where the creation of the Miranda Warning came about where police officials are required to inform the suspects before questioning them about their legal rights during the process. [Mir05]. There have been some legal cases which have been the cause of changes in the United States law enforcement system. Miranda v. Arizona was one of those cases which led to introduction of the Miranda warning (rights). The Miranda v. Arizona case resulted in ensuring that criminal suspects that were held in police custody were required to be given a warning known as a Miranda warning. These warnings needed to be given to the suspects before the police would begin the interrogation process. The sole purpose of these warning are mainly to ensure that the person accused is well aware of their rights in police custody and can use those rights at any time. The statements that these suspects make can always be retracted on the basis of not having met their legal rights if so in such a situation. Therefore, with the rule of the Miranda Warning, the preservation of their confession is there to ensure that the suspect is completely aware of these legal rights and that he can decide to make the confession on the basis of his own free will and that he knows the consequences that follow. With the current system going at hand, the law enforcement officials and still use the method of interrogation to gain information from the evidence that has been found. But they are restricted to only keep it in the interrogation room until and unless the suspect gets his legal rights. The concept of the rights being properly mentioned before every interrogation began right after the Miranda v. Arizona case. This law was enforced by the Supreme Court to ensure that the suspects are not violated of their rights. Even after over forty years, there are no proper wordings that are to be used before an interrogation. The fact that the suspect should be aware of his legal rights should be conveyed in such a way that the suspect can make a decision of whether he wants to have an attorney or not. Failing to convey the message properly to the suspect once again results to the violation of the suspects rights. With time the formation of the verb “Mirandize” also came into being. Mirandize basically implies that the officer, at the time of arrest, must read out the Miranda Warning to the individual who has been arrested. The Miranda Warning topic has become a very strong point. After the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court also declared that the criminal defendants who are informed of their rights and have no waived them must explicitly state that they wish to remain silent and not speak to the police to protect themselves from self-incrimination. And if they speak to the police before the interrogation or after it, the words may not be used against them in the court because of their statement made before. Ever since the initiation of this law, the courts have ruled out that the statement just needs to be made and should be meaningful and easy to understand by the suspect. In some cases, the suspect must reply with a confirming “yes” to indicate that he has understood the statement and that he will now act according to them in the custody of the law. Some other departments also require that the officer ask the suspect whether he understands or not after every single statement that is made. The silence of the suspect should also not be taken as a waiver in any case unless the suspect so as to states so. All the statements that the suspect makes after he/she has been arrested will be used against them in court and will be kept as evidence. There are a few cases in which the statements that the suspect makes are not counted where the officer fails to convey the Miranda Warning to the suspect because he cannot convey the statement in the suspects’ language. The education level of the suspect might require the officer to use simple clauses and statements that make it easier for the suspect to understand his rights. The courts require these statements that are not done in English to be recorded so that they can later ensure that the language used conveys the required message. For the Miranda Warning to apply, six factors must be kept in consideration. The first factor is where the evidence must have been gathered from. Secondly, the evidence must be testimonial. Third, the evidence must be obtained while the suspect was in custody. Fourth, the product of the interrogation should have led to build the evidence. Fifth, the interrogation must be conducted by state-agents. And lastly, the evidence must be offered by the state during the criminal prosecution. [And11]. The Miranda Warning is simply an extension that is based from the 5th amendment that was made. The 5th amendment included that the individuals in the custody of the law enforcement should be protected against coercive interrogations. The military justice system also provides for the rights of the suspect in a different pattern. The suspect is given a form on which the charges levied against him are written and he signs at the end of the paper to convey that he has fully understood. Verbal rights are not sufficient in the armed forces and “rights of the accused” must be given in the form to paper. The exception of the Miranda Warning in cases of public safety is also considered. The New York v. Quarles case led to the Supreme Court allowing for a public safety exception. These situations are when the officer is confronted with a situation which brings the public to harm. The police officer is not required to abide by the police manual at that time and just act spontaneously to ensure the safety of the present public. Therefore the rule of the Miranda Warning is not absolute. In a similar case, an undercover officer is not required to read out the Miranda Warning because it may jeopardize his own safety if he reveals that he is linked to the law or that he is an officer. [And11]. References Mir05: , (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)), And11: , (Godfrey), Read More