Miranda Rule and the Fifth Amendment Rights

The Miranda Ruling and the Fifth Amendment Rights

The Miranda rule is defined as an evidence obtained by the police officer during a custodial interrogation. This evidence cannot be used in court during trial unless the defendant was first informed of the right not to incriminate oneself and the right to a lawyer. The Miranda rule consist of four rules that pave the way in which rules are to be ordered to help ease the pressure of the questioning room. The Miranda rule requires that, before the commencement of the custodial interrogations, a criminal in custody must be informed that: he/she have a right to remain silent; any statements made can be used against him or her in the court of law; he/she have a right to the presence of an attorney during any interrogation; and, if she/she cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed prior to any interrogation if so wishes. After which, the police officer in charge would obtain a valid waiver of the Miranda privilege by the criminal to terminate any further questioning immediately, most especially, upon a criminal request.

The right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during an interrogation is the two most significant right in the Miranda rule. The suspect/criminal must clearly invoke the right to remain silent whenever an attorney is requested, and the law enforcement must stop all interrogation immediately. This rule has become so rooted in the police routine practices that they have become part of the national culture; yet, remain controversial. The Miranda rule was intended to protect against coerced confessions, but has been criticized for tying the hands of the law enforcement, its officials, and favoring criminals. Without the Miranda rule, any statem...

... middle of paper ...

...urt, the court established the rule as a way of advising criminals of their Fifth Amendment right. The Miranda rule was named after a criminal in the 1960, Ernesto Miranda. The case brief Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), alongside with three other cases serves as a vehicle in bring some very important legal issues before the United States Supreme Court. Ernesto Miranda, as fondly known, was the defendant was who arrested for rape and kidnapping on June 2nd of the 1966. He was taken to the taken to the police custody where he was questioned for two hours and made to sign a confession.

The confession contains that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his rights when he was not been informed of it. His statement was used against him in the court of law, and he was charged of the rape and kidnapping. The Supreme Court affirmed the case. The legal issue is whether the