subject: You Have The Right To Remain Silent [print this page] Although most people have slight familiarity with the phrase 'Miranda Rights', a lot of people are unfamiliar with the real origins of the Miranda Warning, which is generally referred to as the right to remain silent.
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. Miranda was taken into custody by the police, and sent him to a Phoenix police station. The witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then led to the interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to interrogate him. Miranda was never made aware about his rights before the interrogation started. He was never told he had the authority to a legal representative to be there during the questioning. After spending two hours in the interrogation room, Miranda signed a written confession that the police officers produced in front of him. Situated on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was deliberate, without any promises of resistance or threats. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession "with full knowledge of my legal rights understanding any statement I make may be used against me."
When Miranda's case was forward to trial, the prosecution used the written confession as proof against him. The defense objected, asking for the evidence to be suppressed. But, the judge allowed the confession to be confessed. Miranda was convicted of all counts, which consisted of kidnapping and rape. On every charge he was imprisoned to 20 to 30 years, with the sentences running concurrently. On Miranda's first appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that his rights had not been violated by the admission of the confession, and therefore affirmed the conviction . The basis for the decision was related to the fact that Miranda never particularly asked guidance.
Finally, Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court lined that based off the evidence given by the police officers, and the admission of Miranda, it was apparent that Miranda had never been told in any way of his right to a legal representative, or his right to have one during his questioning. The court also stated that Miranda was never informed of his right to not be compelled to incriminate himself. The Court also stated that without these counsel, all statement from Miranda were excluded. They went on to rule that, just due to the confession had a typed statement saying Miranda had full knowledge of his rights, never reaches the level needed for one to intelligently surrender their Constitutional Rights. The Supreme Court had to overturn the decision after the information was produced in the court.
The decision in Miranda stands for the proposal that the prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial examining of the defendant till it demonstrates the use of practical safety measures effectual to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). This means that any time an individual is in custody and subject to interrogation, the police must explain the person of his rights, or the statements are inadmissible in court.
These 'Miranda Rights' have certainly revolutionized the way police interact with suspects. Consequent Supreme Court cases have assisted to further describe the rights of the accused when interrelating with law enforcement, though, Miranda remains one of the most powerful and critical Supreme Court decisions.
