Miranda v. Arizona | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Miranda v. Arizona was a case brought to the Supreme Court in 1966 after Ernesto Miranda appealed his guilty conviction of kidnapping and rape. In his appeal, Miranda claimed he was unaware of his right to remain silent and his resulting confession should not be used to incriminate him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and established the Miranda Warning. This warning is now recited in most instances of arrest to ensure the accused people are aware of their rights.
0:00 You’ve probably noticed how many times TV police officers say you have the right to remain silent. This is called a Miranda warning. But have you ever wondered why that happens? All the time. The 1966 Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona help shed light on this phenomenon. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of the horrific crimes of kidnapping and rape.
0:23 He was detained by police and chose not to have a lawyer present while being interrogated for 2 hours, where he ultimately confessed to committing both crimes. Local courts found him guilty and sentenced him to 2 20 to 30 year jail terms. Following the decision, Miranda appealed his conviction, stating that he had not been advised of his right to remain silent
0:43 and therefore his confession should not be used as evidence. So why did Ernesto feel that he had been wrongly tried? Well, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
1:03 And the 6th Amendment reads in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Lastly, in 1963, the Supreme Court had ruled and Gideon v. Wainwright that the state must provide a lawyer to any defendant who couldn’t otherwise afford one.
1:24 Although Ernesto Miranda provided a written confession acknowledging he understood the statements made during the interrogation could be used against him, the question remained could it be used to incriminate him as he was not informed of his rights prior to making that statement? The Supreme Court took up the case in 1966 and Miranda’s conviction was overturned by a narrow five to four majority.
1:46 The court found the interrogation environment had been designed to be, and was intimidating to Miranda, placing him under the will of the police. Ultimately, the court ruled, there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside the criminal court proceedings and thus the Miranda warning was born. It includes phrases such as you have the right to remain silent.
2:08 Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. It is important to note that there was dissent amongst the Justices. Some argued that the majority opinion created too strict of an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, as the Fifth Amendment does not necessarily prohibit all pressure placed
2:30 on suspects, while others noted that there was no legal precedent that supported a requirement to inform citizens of their rights. With an issue so important and so complex, it should be noted that although police must normally inform accused persons of their rights, there are circumstances when someone might not hear "you have the right to remain silent upon arrest."
2:50 These include general booking questions such as where the suspect lives or works, if a jailhouse snitch who is not a police officer solicits information from a suspect, and if there is a public safety or emergency concern, such as a kidnapping where someone’s life is in immediate danger. For more information on this and many other important court cases throughout history, be sure to check out the other videos in our Homework Help series.