5th Amendment: All persons being arrested must be read their rights prior to interrogation
The principle of being told your rights when arrested is a very important amendment. If I were to have been arrested and I didn’t know that I had the right to remain silent, I may just say what the man wants me to say in order to get him to refrain from beating and using cruel and unusual punishment on me.
The reason for the argument being set forth is as follows:
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. The police took him into custody, and transported him to a Phoenix police station. The witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then lead to the interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to question him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the right to an attorney to be present during the questioning. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Located on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.”
The ruling was that no admissions of guilt that where given before the reading of their rights cannot be used in a court case as evidence against the defendant. In the NY Times on June 13, 1968, it says, “Consequently, under the rulings, the prosecution cannot use in a trial any admissions or confessions made by the suspect while in custody unless it first proves that the police complied with a detailed list of safeguards to protect the right against self-incrimination.”(NY Times). In an excerpt from the full transcript of the case, it says, “The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.”
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0613.html#article
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-05/14-miranda-v-arizona.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436
-
- The actual article as it was in the paper the morning after the ruling
-
- Miranda being Arrested for kidnapping and rape
-
- Miranda’ Mugshot
