Answer

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Facts

Confessions had been procured from the defendant; Ernesto Miranda (“Miranda”) under circumstances that did not meet the Constitutional requirement to provide the Fifth Amendment protection. He was interrogated by the police for two hours while in custody and did not have counsel during the entire time. A signed written confession was procured at the end of that time. It was admitted at trial and based on it, he was sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years in prison (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).

Procedural Posture

The case of Miranda v Arizona was a cumulative decision that was based on four cases; three of the cases were handled at the state level and one at the federal level (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). After being aggrieved with the trial court’s decision, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court (this court concurred with the trial court), then to the US Supreme Court.

Issue

The legal issue under examination was; whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination should be strictly extended to the interrogation of a person by the police.

Ruling

The ruling of the US Supreme Court was in favor of Miranda as the court indicated that a suspect has the right to the Fifth Amendment protection and that this right should always be accessible.

Holding

The decision of the Arizona Supreme Court stood overturned.

Analysis

The majority decision was rendered by Justice Warren who noted that when defendants provide statements while in custody, they can only be admissible in court when the constitutionally prescribed procedural safeguards have been respected. As outlined by the majority, once warnings have been given in accordance with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, and the suspect has voluntarily agreed to waiver his right, the process of custodial interrogation can continue. If, however, the subject wishes to remain silent in the course of the questioning, the interrogation must stop (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Any statement made after the defendant has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege is merely regarded as a product of compulsion thus inadmissible in court. Since Miranda was not from the first instance informed of; his right to seek the consult of an attorney before and during the interrogation; as well as, the right against self-incrimination, any statement obtained from him was a product of compulsion thus inadmissible.

Dissent

Justice Clark was one of the four judges who had a dissenting opinion. He was of the opinion that if the Fifth Amendment was interpreted too strictly, it would curtain the efficiency of law enforcement.

This case has significantly impacted law enforcement in the US since officers must inform suspect of the Miranda Warning at the point of arrest.