The Right to Question in Interrogation

547 Words2 Pages

FACTS: The Defendant, Ernesto Miranda (”Mr. Miranda”), was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, 23 years old and had completed only one-half of the ninth grade. The officers interrogated him for two hours, and eventually they obtained a written confession. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights. The officers admitted at trial that Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an attorney present. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping on the basis of the confession. ISSUE: Must the police inform a suspect who is subject to a custodial interrogation of his or her constitutional rights involving self-incrimination and right to counsel prior to questioning? LOWER COURT RULING: The state supreme court affirmed the conviction. Miranda appealed. SUPREME COURT RULING: When a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, the following warnings must be given: he has the right to remain silent; that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; that he has the right to have an attorney present; and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. The Fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized when a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom. Once these warnings have been given, a person may knowingly and intelligently waive his rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. No evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against a person unless the prosecution has shown that the person had been informed of his rights. If a person indicates a desire to remain silent or have an attorney present at any time during questioning, the interrogation must cease or cease until an attorney is present. The admissibility of volunteered confessions or statements is not affected by this decision. If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney, the state has a heavy burden to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege. A valid waiver is not presumed simply from silence. Warnings are a judicial prophylactic to protect the fundamental right against compelled self-incrimination because of the oppressive nature of station house questioning. This case does not hamper police officers in investigating crime because general on-the-scene questioning is not affected. The majority notes that once an individual chooses to remain silent or asks to first see an attorney, any interrogation should cease.

Open Document