Background
Summary and Questions
•
•
Ernesto
Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona
in 1963. A Phoenix woman was kidnapped and raped. She identified
Miranda in a police lineup. Miranda was arrested, charged
with the crimes, and questioned by the police for two hours.
The police officers questioning him did not inform him of
his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of
his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.
The Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . ."
The Sixth Amendment states that, "In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance
of counsel for his defense."
As
a result of the questioning, Miranda confessed in writing
to the crimes. His statement also said that he was aware
of his right against self-incrimination. During his trial,
the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction,
and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each
count.
Miranda
appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney
argued that his confession should have been excluded from
trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor
had an attorney been present during his interrogation. The
police officers involved admitted that they had not given
Miranda any explanation of his rights. The state argued,
however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime
in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The
Arizona Supreme Court denied Miranda's appeal and upheld
his conviction.
The
case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the
role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused,
as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution?
The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous
attempts to deal with these issues. The Court had already
ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from
being forced to confess. They had also held that persons
accused of serious crimes have a fundamental right to an
attorney, even if they cannot afford one. In 1964, after
Miranda's arrest, but before the Court heard his case, the
Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right
to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment
right to the assistance of a lawyer is violated. But do
the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused
person is aware of these rights before they question that
person?
In
1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear
Miranda's case. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear
three similar cases. The Court combined all the cases into
one case. Since Miranda was listed first among the four
cases considered by the Court, the decision came to be known
by that name. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona
was handed down in 1966.
Questions to Consider:
- What
rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect?
The Sixth Amendment?
-
If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights,
do you think he might have done anything differently?
-
Individual rights must be balanced against the values
of society at large. For instance, the right to free speech
must be balanced against our desire for an orderly society.
This is why demonstrations, while protected by the First
Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on them.
In Miranda, what values or goals of society must be balanced
against the right against self-incrimination and the right
to counsel?
- You
are probably learning about the rights of the accused
in a government or history class. Some would argue that
it is the individual's responsibility to know what his
or her rights are under the Constitution, and the government
can assume that accused persons know their rights without
informing them after they are arrested. Do you think the
government should have to inform each individual who is
arrested of his or her rights? Why or why not?
|
