Miranda Law

On March 13, 1963, in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, a man with a past criminal record, was arrested at Arizona in his home. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and brought into custody by the police and brought to the Phoenix police station. He was suspected and then later identified as the person who stole $8. 00 from a Phoenix, Arizona bank worker. Ernesto Miranda was questioned for two hours by police, then confessed to the robbery, unexpectedly he also confessed to kidnapping and raping an 18 year old girl 11 days earlier. He had signed the two written confessions. During the arrest and questioning, Miranda was never told he had the right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and to be protected against self-incrimination. On June 19, 1963, Miranda was trialed in court for the robbery charges from Barbara Roe, the women who accused him of the robbery. His lawyer, Alvin Moore, argued that Miranda was mentally ill, hoping to gain his client freedom. Two doctors examined Miranda and conclude that he was not mentally ill. They said, â€Å"Miranda was aware of the nature and quality of his acts and he was aware that what he did was wrong. Miranda’s mentally ill claim was dropped. During the trial on June 19th, Carroll Cooley, the officer who questioned Miranda had admitted that he did not tell Miranda that he was allowed an attorney at the time, and that anything he said could be used against him in court. Alvin Moore believed the confession’s of Miranda were not voluntary and that the confessions should be dismissed. The judge disagreed, and found Miranda guilty on the robbery charges. They next day, on June 20,1963, was Miranda’s kidnapping and rape trail. Once again Alvin Moore asked for the confessions to be dismissed as evidence because it was a violation of Miranda’s constitutional rights, to be questioned without the knowledge of being granted an attorney and for him to know his rights. The judge told the jury that they could decide if the confessions were voluntary or not, because of the signed confession they decided it was. Based largely on his confessions during the police questioning, Miranda was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in jail. In August 1963, Moore went for an appeal. He felt the decision was unfair and did not follow the proper rules of the law and constitution. He believed Miranda’s constitutional rights were denied. He filed an appeal with the appellate court, the Arizona Supreme court. The supreme court or appellate court is there to search for any discrepancies in the trail that many have violated the proper procedures, they do not look at the criminal case itself. If the appellate court found that Miranda’s confession was involuntary then the conviction would be overturned. The Arizona Supreme Court, upheld the first decision of the criminal court where Miranda remained behind bars. At the same time, in Washington D. C. supreme court, there was a pending case of Danny Escobedo, one similar to that of the case of Miranda’s, which would influence Miranda’s case. Escobedo was accused of murdering his brother in law. Police brought him in for questioning, when Escobedo asked for a lawyer he was denied by the officer. After hours of questioning, Escobedo finally admitted in the plotting of the murder, he did not pull the trigger though. Escobedo was convicted of murder. Escobedo’s lawyer argued that his confession was not voluntary and he was denied a lawyer. Just six weeks before, the Supreme Courts had decided Massiah V. United States, another similar case, in which the courts ruled for the first time, that the Sixth Amendment right gave the defendant the right to a â€Å"counsel† once the individual has been charge. This decision was used in Escobedo’s trial where his conviction was reversed because his confession was dismissed. The decision made in the Escobedo V. Illinois (1964) , one year after the Miranda’s trial in the Arizona Supreme Court, helped Miranda resurfaced his trial. In 1996, in Arizona prison, Miranda sent a petition to the U. S. Supreme Court. His case was accepted because it raised issues in a person’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court had to revisit many issues and used Miranda’s second appeal as a starting point. John Flynn, a highly regarded defense lawyer took over the appeal case. He claimed that the police had violated Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right to protection against self-incrimination. The Bill of rights states that, â€Å"No person†¦shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This violation accrued during the police interrogation. They did not inform Miranda of his rights to remain silent, or to request for an attorney, which would protect him from self-incrimination. Arizona state lawyers argued that Miranda could have asked for an attorney anytime during the interrogation, but he did not do so. Flynn argued that since the police already violated his Fifth amendment right, of informing Miranda of self-incrimination, then caused them to violate Miranda’s Sixth amendment of a right to a lawyer. It states that, â€Å"In all criminal prosecutions†¦have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. † The U. S. Supreme Court agreed with John Flynn and reversed Miranda’s conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren said that Miranda raise issues that, â€Å"go to the root of our concepts of America Criminal jurisprudence: the restrains society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crimes†¦the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself. He finds it necessary for all to follow procedures and laws that the Amendments lay out for American citizens. Miranda was re-tried after his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. In his second trial, his confession was not presented. However, he was still convicted of kidnapping and rape based on other evidence. He served eleven years in prison and was paroled in 1972. After his release from prison, he made money by selling â€Å"Miranda rights† cards with his signature on them. In 1976, at the age of 34, he was stabbed to death in a bar fight. Ironically, the man suspected of killing him exercised his Miranda rights and refused to talk to police. He was released and never charged with Miranda's murder. Following the trial Chief Warren clarified rules for police to follow in future cases. It is a now popular line known to be cited by officers during questioning. The statement goes, â€Å"you have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? † The officer must receive a verbal or written agreement that the suspect understands his right to remain silent. The officer is then says â€Å"Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? † Once again, the officer must have a verbal or written acknowledgement of their right. The next statement continues, â€Å"You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? † That statement is followed by â€Å"If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? † The last Miranda right specifically asks â€Å"Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? † The Supreme Court then said that the â€Å"process of interrogation is intimidating by its very nature, and that a suspect must be read his or her rights to counteract this intimidation. A suspect needs to be read their rights before he is to be interrogated and an officer may arrest a suspect without reading the Miranda rights as long as the police does not question or interrogate the suspect in any way. Police initially opposed Miranda rights, but it soon became universally recognized. The â€Å"Miranda Rights† was a major mile stone in U. S. history. It has further strengthened the American citizen’s constitutional rights. The Miranda rule protects suspects from abusive tactics during interrogations by guaranteeing that defendants know their legal rights. It also restructured the legal system by having law enforcement remind suspects of their rights. Without the Miranda laws, courts would have to evaluate each arrest in order to make sure that all legal procedures were followed. Reading a suspect's rights protects both the law officer and the suspect from wrongful prosecution, but it has also cause many issues for the law enforcement agencies. With the Miranda rights in place, law enforcement procedures are more complicated. People now know their rights to remain silent and many suspects exercise their right. They wait for a lawyer, resulting in fewer voluntary confessions, prosecutions, convictions and crimes solved. The Miranda rights also cause millions of dollars in lawyer fees and court fees for both the state and the prosecutors. For the past 40 years American citizens have recognized the Miranda rights as a popular line in most police television drama, but it has much deeper significance. It has not just changed the procedures of an arrest and interrogation, but also has revolutionized the civil liberties of being an American citizen. Miranda v. Arizona is the one of the most important case to the development of human rights.