Hello, this is Song Law Firm. Often in movies and on TV, you’ll see a police officer handcuffing a suspect and saying something like this “You have the right to remain silent, and anything you say can be used against you in court. You also have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, the government can get one for you if you want one.” Today, we’re going to share the origins of this statement, known as the Miranda Warning, and how it has become one of the most important rights in US criminal law.
The world-famous U.S. “Miranda Warning” are derived from the last name “Miranda” of defendant Ernest Miranda, the subject of the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436. Mr. Miranda was questioned by police in Arizona in 1963 on suspicion of the kidnapping and rape of a girl. The suspect, Mr. Miranda, was arrested and after about two hours of sustained interrogation by the local police, he eventually confessed that he had committed the rape and signed a statement containing that confession. The case then proceeded to criminal trial, where Miranda’s signed statement confessing to the rape was admitted as material evidence at trial, and he was eventually sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for kidnapping and rape.
After being sentenced to prison, Mr. Miranda, through his lawyer, filed an appeal to a higher court, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Miranda argued that the procedures followed by the police during the interrogation and in obtaining the statement were unconstitutional, and therefore violated his constitutional rights and that the statement obtained could not be used as evidence in his criminal trial.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution state that a person accused in a criminal trial has the right against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney, respectively. Therefore, the court held that both rights must be respected until the suspect voluntarily waives them. If this is violated, the evidence obtained cannot be used to prove the guilt of the suspect in a criminal case.
In cases like the Miranda case, the suspect’s Miranda warnings included statements that his confession was voluntary, that it was not made under duress or promise of immunity, and that the suspect fully understood his legal rights and that it could be used against him. Accordingly, the State of Arizona argued that he voluntarily waived his constitutional rights. However, the actual suspect, Mr. Miranda, was questioned without any of the investigators informing him of his U.S. Constitutional right against self-incrimination, his right to be accompanied by an attorney, and his right not to incriminate himself before the questioning began, and the suspect was made to sign a statement. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government investigators, including police, have a duty to inform a suspect of his right to remain silent, the fact that his words may be used against him in court, his right to an attorney, and his right to request one from the government if one is not available. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Mr. Miranda’s constitutional rights had been violated, and his statement could not be used as evidence in court. This precedent has guided government investigators to this day in their “Miranda warnings”.
In a criminal trial, victims are entitled to all of their constitutional rights, and it is important to have a strong defense against a criminal disposition that did not follow due process.
If you have any questions about criminal law or legal trivia you’d like to know, please don’t hesitate to contact us at mail@songlawfirm.com으로. I will reflect that in my next column.