Any person who has come into contact with the law is completely aware of the common police phrase of which outlines that everyone has the right of remaining silent during interrogation. This phrase and more others include access to a lawyer and are widely known as Miranda rights (Graham, 1966, p. 59). The 5th amendment protects the suspect from incriminating himself. In this case from 1960, Ernesto Miranda was arrested under convictions for bank robbery, rape, and kidnapping. He was thoroughly interrogated where he gave in to having committed the crimes. The petitioner goes ahead to suppress a confession he had made to the police about the investigation because the police had not issued him the Miranda warning. Consequently, the court overturned his conviction because he had not been adequately informed by the police who arrested him on his rights.
From this case, Supreme Court respected his legal right of remaining silent which was not observed when he was in police custody. The court ruled out that all suspected had the right to be informed on their right to remaining silent while in custody. Also, they should not be pressured or forced to admit the charges placed against them and if not, the statements made at that time can never be presented against the defendant in the court of law (Schrock et al. 1978, p. 1). After two years since the ruling of Miranda, the Congress approved a bill declaring that confessions provided by suspects can be presented in the courts during the trial provided that the confessions were made. This meant that if the arrested personnel confessed at their own free will and gave in to the charges after being subjected to interrogation even if the police did not observe the Miranda right. According to many people, this new law made a contract with the Miranda ruling and therefore termed as non-applicable.
Although Miranda had taken an oath and confessed to his criminal deeds such as raping an 18-year-old girl and bank robbery, his right for accessing a lawyer was not made known to him before he confessed. He was as well not informed that his oral confessions will be used as evidence against him in the court of law. Aided by his lawyer, Dickerson appealed that his stated facts were false and involuntary. The court agreed with the Congress holding that the protections set forth for Miranda were not constitutionally specified. This meant that the Congress had the right to overrule Miranda with a statue. The Supreme Court rule for Dickerson, however, wrote that Miranda’s decision was valid as per the court and may not impact the Congress act which has overruled it. Decision for the court was that the warning should be incorporated into police routines. The two justices argued that there was nothing unconstitutional about using voluntary statements by defendants against them. In the Miranda v. Arizona case, Supreme Court decision had attended various instances involving interrogation of suspects whilst in police custody. From these distinctive cases, suspects were interrogated by the federal bureau of investigation and the defendant was not issued clear information concerning his rights before the commencement of the investigation procedure. Altogether, starred cases confession and signed statements were admitted during the trial of the specific suspects.
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the absence of appropriate precautions, the procedure of interrogation of suspected or accused individuals of certain crimes in custody involves captivating tensions designed to reduce the suspect’s ability to contest. A while after the court resolved the conviction of Miranda, he was tried again by the state of Arizona, but his confession was not introduced as proof. The resolution by the court was that, due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation, the written statements and disclosures were invalid. Therefore they were not put into consideration because no self-incrimination phrases or confessions would be admitted. The 5th and the 6th amendment right granted that the suspect was not aware of his rights or otherwise chose to ignore them (Grisso, 1980, p. 1134).
The Miranda rights hold that arrested personnel at any time during questioning should know that he can choose not to say a word to anyone about his crimes. If the person asks for a lawyer, then the request should be met in relevance to the legal requirements and the questioning must stop until the lawyer is present. At that time, the suspect has a chance of conferring with the lawyer and to have him present during any form of interrogation and recording of statements. However, the justices placed accusations on the majority rulers of wrongly facing the coercive interrogation issue. They asserted that one the suspects were warned of their right, they would always demand the presence of an attorney to deny the investigation bureau the access to confessions.
According to the case, Miranda has tried again in the year 1967 after the court has overthrown his original case. The prosecutor opted for witnesses this time as well as other evidence apart from his confessions (Bates, 2017). The witnesses testified about his crimes, and the court found him guilty where he was put behind bars for 20-30 years. Miranda was bailed in 1972, and he returned to his home place where he wrote autography on Miranda and how arrested suspects should be granted their Miranda rights in every circumstance. Other suspects were also arrested but opted to remain silent unlike Miranda, and hence they were released due to lack of evidence. Other defendants whose cases were tied alongside Miranda pleaded for less charge but were proved guilty without including their confessions and previous incriminating statements which the Supreme Court had barred before.
In summary, the Miranda suspect right should be put into practice and embedded in the society. This is to prevent the suspects from giving false statements at the time of arrest because this may be influenced by fear or pressure from the police at the time of arrest or in police custody.
Bates, K. A. (2017). Miranda v. Arizona. The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice.
Graham Jr, K. W. (1966). What is Custodial Interrogation: California’s Anticipatory Application of Miranda v. Arizona. UCLA L. Rev., 14, 59.
Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles’ capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. Cal. L. Rev., 68, 1134.
Schrock, T. S., Welsh, R. C., & Collins, R. (1978). Interrogational Rights: Reflections on Miranda v. Arizona. S. Cal. L. Rev., 52, 1.