Miranda v. Arizona
What are the important facts?
Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnaping of an 18 year old girl. He was taken in custody. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. A written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
What is the question the court is being asked to answer?
Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.
How did the Court rule?
Supreme Court holding" the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
Why did the Court rule the way it did?
The Court rule in that way due to “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist, and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any