| Background
Summary and Questions
•
•
•
Ernesto
Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix,
Arizona, in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a crime victim
identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with
rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while
in police custody. The police officers questioning him did
not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination,
or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an
attorney.
As
a result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to
the crimes with which he was charged. His written statement
also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his
right against self-incrimination. During his trial, the
prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction,
and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each
count.
Miranda's
defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
His attorney argued that his confession should have been
excluded from trial because he had not been informed of
his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his
interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that
they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights.
They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted
of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his
conviction.
The
case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the
role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused,
as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution?
The Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
. . ." The Sixth Amendment states that, "In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
. . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous
attempts to deal with these issues. In Brown v. Mississippi
(1936), the Court had ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected
individuals from being forced to confess. In Gideon
v. Wainwright (1963), the Court held that persons
accused of felonies have a fundamental right to an attorney,
even if they cannot afford one. In 1964, after Miranda's
arrest, the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied
the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth
Amendment right to counsel is violated (Escobedo
v. Illinois). But do the police have an obligation
to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights?
If so, at what point in the criminal justice process must
the defendant learn of these rights?
In
1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear
Miranda's case. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear
three similar cases, Vignera v. New York,
Westover v. United States, and California
v. Stewart. The Court combined the four cases. Since
Miranda was listed first among the four cases considered
by the Court, the decision came to be known by that name.
The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was handed
down in 1966.
Questions to Consider:
- What
rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect?
The Sixth Amendment?
-
How might knowledge of these rights have changed what
Ernesto Miranda did when the police questioned him?
- Individual
rights must be balanced against the values of society
at large. For instance, the right to free speech must
be balanced against our desire for an orderly society.
This is why demonstrations, while protected by the First
Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on them.
In Miranda, what values must be balanced against the right
against self-incrimination and the right to counsel?
-
You are probably learning about the rights of the accused
in a government or history class. Some would argue that
it is the individual's responsibility to know what his
or her rights are under the Constitution, and the government
can assume that accused persons know their rights without
informing them. Do you think the government should have
to inform each individual who is arrested of his or her
rights? Why or why not?
|
