[ad_1]
Miranda’s rights guarantee the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and that anything said can be used in court. The US Supreme Court defined these rights in 1966 after the case of Ernesto Miranda, who was convicted of kidnapping and rape. Miranda’s rights must be read to a person in police custody prior to questioning. In 2000, the US Supreme Court upheld the decision but stated that police must not read Miranda’s rights unless they intend to question the suspect about the crime for which they were arrested.
Miranda’s rights are a constitutional guarantee that any person arrested and questioned as a suspect in a crime is advised that they have the right to remain silent. Miranda rights also ensure that the suspect is told that anything he or she says can be used in court as evidence and that the suspect has the right to speak to a lawyer. Also, if the suspect cannot afford to hire a lawyer, the court will assign one free of charge to the case. Miranda’s rights are to be read to a person in police custody prior to questioning in a statement known as the Miranda Warning.
Miranda’s rights were defined by the United States Supreme Court in 1966. The case, known as Miranda vs. Arizona, involved 22-year-old Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested in March 1963 on charges of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman. After the woman identified him, Miranda was questioned for two hours and finally signed a confession admitting to the crime. The written confession had a typewritten paragraph on each page indicating that the suspect was fully aware of his legal rights and understood that anything he said could be used against him.
Miranda was tried in June 1963 and represented by Alvin Moore, a court-appointed attorney. Moore objected to the confession being used as evidence, arguing that Miranda had never been verbally informed of her rights. Yale Judge McFate overturned this plea and the jury found Miranda guilty. He was sentenced to two simultaneous terms of 20 to 30 years. Moore immediately appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, but the appeal was denied in 1965.
At the time the Arizona court was hearing Miranda’s appeal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was seeking a case to bring to the United States Supreme Court involving a suspect’s right to representation. The ACLU contacted Moore about handling the case, but he was in poor health and could not be involved. John Flynn and John Frank agreed to take the case pro bono and wrote a petition in June 1965 alleging that Miranda’s Sixth Amendment rights had been violated.
In February 1966, the case was heard by the US Supreme Court. Flynn argued that not only was Miranda’s right to legal representation violated, but that her Fifth Amendment rights were also disregarded. The State of Arizona argued that this was not a Fifth Amendment issue, but rather an effort to clarify the recent Arizona Supreme Court decision regarding a suspect’s right to legal representation. Three months later, on June 13, 1966, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote a decision reflecting the Court’s finding that Miranda’s Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. This decision required that any person held in custody be clearly informed of her Miranda rights.
Miranda was retried for the crime, but although his confession was not admitted as evidence in light of Miranda’s newly defined rights, he was convicted based on other evidence and served 11 years. He was released on parole in 1972, but continued to break the law. In 1976, Ernesto Miranda was killed in a bar fight.
In 2000, the US Supreme Court reviewed the issue of Miranda’s rights. While the earlier decision was upheld, Chief Justice Warren Rehnquist said police must not read Miranda’s rights unless they intend to question the suspect about the crime for which he was arrested.
