Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is an important decision of the United States Supreme Court. In 5-4 majority, the Court declares that relief and release statements made in response to the interrogation by the defendant in police custody shall be accepted in court only if the prosecutor can show that the defendant is informed of the right to consult a lawyer before and during interrogation and the right to self-abuse before police ask questions, and that the defendant not only understands these rights, but voluntarily releases them.
This case has a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, making what became known as Miranda's rights section of routine police procedures to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court ruled Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States , Vignera v. New York , and California v Stewart.
Miranda's warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda", or "Mirandising" a suspect) is a formal warning name that law enforcement officers in the United States must provide criminal suspects in police custody (or in situations of detention) before they are interrogated, i> Miranda . The objective is to ensure that the defendant is aware of, and reminded, of these rights before being questioned or actions that are likely to lead to an aggravating response.
The decision of the US Supreme Court Berghuis v. Thompkins (June 1, 2010), criminal suspects aware of their right to remain silent and to lawyers, but choose not to "Unambiguously" ask them, may find the next voluntary statement to be treated as the implied waiver of their rights, and used as or as part of the evidence. At least one scholar argues that Thompkins effectively eliminates Miranda .
Video Miranda v. Arizona
​​â € <â €
Legal aid movement
During the 1960s, a movement that gave defendants legal aid emerged from the collective efforts of various lawyers' associations.
In the civil realm, it led to the creation of the Legal Services Corporation under the Great Society of President Lyndon Baines Johnson program. Escobedo v. Illinois , a case very similar to Miranda, provided for the presence of an advisor during police interrogations. This concept extends to concern over the police interrogation practices, which many consider as barbaric and unfair. Coercive interrogation tactics are known in the slang period as the "third degree".
Capture and confidence
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested, by the Phoenix Police Department, based on indirect evidence linking him to the abduction and rape of an eighteen-year-old woman ten days earlier. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a rape accusation on a form that included a typed statement: "I hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and my own free will, without threats, coercion, or immunity promises , and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make can be used against me. "
However, not long after Miranda told her about her right to negotiate. Before being presented with a form in which he was asked to write the confession he had given orally, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, nor was he informed that his statements during interrogation would be used against him. During the trial, when the prosecutor offered Miranda a written confession as proof, her court-appointed lawyer Alvin Moore objected that because of these facts, the admission was not completely voluntary and should be excluded. Moore's objections were rejected and based on this admission and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on any charges, with a penalty to run concurrently. Moore appealed Miranda to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming Miranda's confession was not entirely voluntary and should not be accepted in court. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the court's decision to recognize recognition in the State v. Miranda, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz, 1965). In affirmation, Agung Arizona strongly emphasized the fact that Miranda did not specifically ask for a lawyer.
Lawyer John Paul Frank, former law officer for Judge Hugo Black, represented Miranda in his call to the US Supreme Court.
Maps Miranda v. Arizona
Supreme Court Opinion
Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, a former prosecutor, expressed the opinion of the Court, which ruled that because of the forced nature of police custodial interrogation (Warren quotes some police training manuals not provided in the argument), no acknowledgment can be made. received under the clause of self-imposition of the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to the lawyer unless the suspect has been made aware of his rights and the suspect then releases them:
The person in custody must, before interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that whatever he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and ask a lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is unable, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
Thus, Miranda's beliefs were canceled. The court also explained what should happen if the suspect chooses to exercise his right:
If the individual shows in any way, anytime before or during interrogation, that he wants to remain silent, interrogations must be stopped... If the individual declares that he wants a lawyer, the interrogation must be stopped until there are lawyers present.. At that time, the individual must have the opportunity to negotiate with the lawyer and ask him to be present during the next interrogation.
Warren refers to existing practices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the rules of the Military Justice Uniform Code, both of which require to notify the suspect of his right to remain silent; FBI warnings include notices of the right to consult.
However, dissenting judges have accused the majority of overreacting to the issue of coercive interrogation, and anticipate drastic effects. They believe that, once warned, the suspects will always sue lawyers, and deny the police ability to gain recognition.
The Clark deal is partly, partial disagreement
In a separate agreement in part, partial disagreement, Justice Tom C. Clark argues that Warren Court went "too far too soon". Instead, Justice Clark will use the "totality of circumstances" test spoken by Justice Goldberg at Haynes v. Washington . Under this test, the court will:
consider in each case whether the police officer prior to the custodial interrogation adds a warning that the suspect may have an advisor present at the interrogation and, furthermore, that the court will appoint someone at his request if he is too poor to use a lawyer. In the absence of warning, the burden will be in the State to prove that the counsel is consciously and intelligently liberated or that in the totality of circumstances, including failure to provide necessary warnings, the recognition is clearly voluntary.
Harlan's opinion
In disagreement, Judge John Marshall Harlan II wrote that "nothing in the letter or spirit of the Constitution or in precedent is matched by the heavy hand and single-sided action drastically taken by the Court on behalf of its fulfillment of constitutional responsibility". Harlan concluded his comments by quoting former Judge Robert H. Jackson: "This court forever adds a new story to the constitutional legal shrine, and the temples have collapsed when one story is added too much."
White opinion
Justice Byron White takes issue with the court announcing new constitutional rights when it has no "factual and textual basis" in the Constitution or the Court's previous opinion for the rules announced in the opinion. He states: "The proposition that privilege against self-torture prohibits interrogations under detention without warning prescribed in majority opinion and without clear neglect of lawyers having no significant support in the history of privilege or in the Fifth language. White Justice also does not believe that it has any basis in English common law.
White warns more about the dire consequences of a majority opinion:
I have no desire to share responsibility for such an impact on the current criminal process.
In a number of unknown cases, Court rules will return a murderer, a rapist or another criminal to the streets and to the neighborhood that produces it, to repeat his crime whenever he wants it. As a result, there will be no gain, but loss, in human dignity.
Next development
Retrial
Miranda was tried in 1967 after the original case against him was discarded. This time the prosecution, instead of using confessions, introduced other evidence and summoned witnesses. One of the witnesses was Twila Hoffman, a woman with whom Miranda lived at the time of the offense; he testified that he had told him to commit a crime. Miranda was convicted in 1967 and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court rejected the review. Miranda was released in 1972. After her release, she returned to her old neighborhood and made a police "Miranda card" which sent out a warning text, to be read to prisoners. He was stabbed to death during a fight in a bar on January 31, 1976. A suspect was arrested, but he, unlike Miranda, exercised his right to remain silent. Without any evidence against him, he was released.
Three other defendants whose case was linked to Miranda - an armed robber, a well-built man, and a bank robber - either bargained for lower charges or found guilty despite their exclusion.
Reactions
Miranda's decision was widely condemned when it came down, as many felt unfair to inform suspects of their rights criminals, as outlined in the decision. Richard Nixon and other conservative groups denounced Miranda for undermining the efficiency of the police, and argued that the decision would contribute to the increase in crime. Nixon, after becoming President, promised to appoint a judge who would be a "strict constructionist" and who would exercise juridical control. Many law enforcement supporters are angry with the negative views of the decision of the police officers.
Miranda warning
After Miranda's decision, the state police department was asked to inform the arrested person or suspect their rights under the decision before the custodial interrogation. Such information is called Miranda warning. Because it is usually necessary that the suspect be asked if they understand their rights, the court also ruled that any further Miranda's waiver should be know, intelligent, and voluntary.
Many American police departments have printed Miranda's signature release forms and dates (after hearing and reading more warnings) if the interrogation will occur.
Data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report show a sharp decline in violent crime and property violation levels after Miranda . However, according to other studies from the 1960s and 1970s, "contrary to popular belief, Miranda has little, if any, effect on detective ability to resolve crime."
Legal development
The Omnibus and Safe Street Crime Control Act of 1968 was intended to waive Miranda for federal crime and to return the previously existing "totality of circumstances" test on Miranda. The validity of this legal provision, which is still codified at 18 U.S.C. Ã, § 3501, was not ruled for another 30 years because the Justice Department has never attempted to rely on it to support the introduction of recognition into evidence in criminal proceedings.
Miranda is undermined by some subsequent decisions that seem to give an exception to "Miranda's warning", challenging his claim as a natural consequence of the Fifth Amendment. Exceptions and developments that have occurred over the years include:
- The court found in Harris v. New York , 401 US 222 (1971), that recognition obtained in violation of Miranda's standards may remain to be used for the purpose of indicting the accused's testimony: that is, if the defendant takes a position in the trial and the prosecutor wishes to introduce the defendant's accusation as a previous inconsistent statement to attack the credibility of the defendant, Miranda hold will not ban this.
- The court found in Rhode Island v. Innis , 446 US 291 (1980), the "spontaneous" statement made by the defendant while in custody, although the defendant has not been given Miranda Warning or has requested the right to attorney and attorney not yet present, may be accepted as evidence, are not provided in response to police questions or other actions by the police that are likely to result in an aggravating response.
- The court found in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 US 420 (1984), that a person subject to custodial interrogation is entitled to benefit from procedural safeguards pronounced in Miranda, irrespective of the nature or severity of the alleged offenses or that he/arrested.
- The court found in New York v. Quarles, 467 US 649 (1984), that there are also "public safety" exceptions to the requirement that Miranda's warning be given before being questioned: for example, if the defendant has information about the location of an unattended weapon or other similar emergency situation requiring public protection, the defendant can be questioned without warning and his response, though incriminating, will be accepted as evidence. In 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Richard Allen Davis, finding that public security exceptions were applied despite the fact that 64 days had passed from the disappearance of the girl who was later found murdered.
- Court find in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 US 157 (1986), that the words "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" only mean that the suspect naturally seems to understand what they are doing and is not forced to sign the neglect; The court ruled that it was irrelevant whether the suspect had actually gone mad at the time.
United States v. Garibay (1998) shows an important issue in terms of expansion of Miranda . Garibay barely speaks English and clearly shows a lack of understanding; indeed, "the agent admitted that he had to repeat the question when the defendant looked confused." The US Appellate Court ruled "a clear error" when the district court found that Garibay had "consciously and intelligently waived Miranda's right" because the defendant I.Q. and poor English skills. The court investigated many aspects of its neglect and found that Mr. Garibay lost all the things they were looking for: he never signed a statement, he only received his warnings verbally and in English, and no interpreter was provided even though they were available. With an opinion that emphasizes "the requirement that a defendant 'conscious and intelligent' override his Miranda right", the Court reverses Garibay's conviction and returns the case.
Miranda survived the powerful challenge at Dickerson v. United States, 530 US 428 (2000), where the validity of the Congress that overruled Miranda through Ã, § 3501 has been tested. What is at stake is whether Miranda's warning is really imposed by the Constitution, or more than just an act that is enacted as a matter of justice policy. In Dickerson , the Court, speaking through the Supreme Justice Rehnquist, upheld Miranda 7-2 and stated that "warnings have become part of our national culture". In disagreements, Judge Scalia believes Miranda warnings are not constitutionally required. He cited several cases showing the majority of the courts at the time, counting himself, and Judge Kennedy, O'Connor, and Thomas, as well as Supreme Court Justices (who had just conveyed contradictory opinions), "[there] on the record for believing that Miranda's offense not a violation of the Constitution ".
Over time, the interrogators began thinking of techniques to honor the "letter" but not Miranda's "spirit." In the case of Missouri v. Seibert , 542 U.S. 600 (2004), the Supreme Court terminated one of the more controversial practices. The Missouri police deliberately detained Miranda's warning and questioned the suspect until they gained confession, then gave warnings, got relief, and got more recognition again . Justice Souter writes for plurality: "The strategy dedicated to draining the substance of Miranda can not be achieved with what training instruction that Dickerson held Congress can not do by law."
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) is a verdict in which the Supreme Court declares that the "ambiguous or vague" statement of a suspect or no statement does not mean that the police must end the interrogation. At least one scholar argues that Thompkins effectively eliminates Miranda . In The Right to Keep Silent , Charles Weisselberg writes that â € Å"the majority at Thompkins reject the basic foundations of the prophylactic rule of Miranda v. Arizona and founded a new one that failed to protect the rights of the suspects "and that
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments