History time

I like history. Here is essay.

Mirana vs. Arizona is a Supreme Court Case, held in 1966, which resulted in the necessity of the “Miranda warning” being given to all arrested individuals. The case was a 5-4 decision.

The case began with the arrest and conviction of Ernest Arturo Miranda. The man was convicted of the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen year old girl based on circumstantial evidence.  After being interrogated for hours by the police, Ernest Miranda eventually confessed to having done the crime. He signed a document that said “I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me”. However, his lawyer objected to the interrogation. Apparently Miranda had not been explicitly informed of his rights. The lawyer claimed that because he had not been explicitly informed, the confession was not truly voluntary and could not be used as evidence in court.  The court overruled the objection and sentenced Miranda to twenty-thirty years in prison on each charge.

The lawyer appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, declaring that ““procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination” and further clarified that “The mere fact that he signed a statement which contained a typed-in clause stating that he had 'full knowledge' of his 'legal rights' does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights.”

The dissenters claimed that the Court hadn’t the right to add new constitutional rights, when nothing is explicitly stated in the Constitution, prior cases, or common law to support the ruling. Dissenter John Harlan claimed that nothing in the Constitution required such a strict, heavy-handed method of criminals being told their rights.

The Court believed it was a fundamental part of due process that arrested people are made fully aware of their rights to remain silent and their rights to an attorney, and felt that the police acted in a way that kept Miranda unaware of his rights. Miranda was then freed, and later brought to court again using other evidence, and was again convicted. To this day, police offices now often have dedicated “Miranda’s cards” that explicitly state every right, and are then signed by the criminal and used as proof in court that the convict was fully aware of their rights.