Analysis Of Miranda's Rights Against Self-Incrimination

One question that frequently rises throughout a constitutional investigation is whether a witness has any right or privilege against self-incrimination? The Fifth Amendment to the U.S Constitution state that no person shall be compiled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Here is a typical “Miranda Warning” used by a police department. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to consult with an attorney before answering any questions and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. These warnings aim to protect a person’s right to be free from compelled self-incrimination during a custodial
Arizona case debated in the Supreme Court. The concern remained “Does the police exercise the questioning of individuals without informing them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination which violate the Fifth Amendment?” Early in 1963, an eighteen year old women was abducted and raped in the area of Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigates the case, and shortly found and detained a mentally disturbed man. The name man name is Ernesto Miranda, Miranda was twenty three years old at the time of the arrested. He admitted that he had abducted and raped the woman after two hours of questioning. When he confessed up to the crime, Miranda was sentenced for kidnapping and rape. However, when Miranda was arrested, he was not told his rights that are stated in the Fifth Amendment. At the court appeal, Miranda’s lawyers reveal that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, he was not told that everything that he said could be used against him. The end of 1966, the United States Supreme Court provided support to the defendant side. (McBride,
Powell (2010) Florida state court convicted Kevin D. Powell for being a felon in possession of a firearm and penalized him to ten years in prison. Mr. Powell tempted to argue the fact that his Miranda warning was unacceptable because the written form used by the Tampa police at his arrest did not clearly direct that he had a right to an attorney at his interrogation. The court of appeals decided and overturned the sentence. Likewise ineffective is the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion that the warning was misleading because the chronological language that Powell called “talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the officers’] questions” suggested he could consult with an attorney only before the interrogation started. (Oyez , 2015) In perspective, the term “before” merely conveyed that Powell’s right to an attorney became effective before he answered any questions at all. Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel’s occurrence would be restricted after the questioning .Powell suggests that today’s holding will tempt law enforcement agencies to end-run Miranda by amending their warnings to introduce ambiguity. But, as the Federal Government explains, it is in law enforcement’s own interest to state warnings with maximum clarity in order to reduce the risk that a court will later find the advice inadequate and therefore suppress a suspect’s statement. The standard warnings used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation are admirably