Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court which was argued February 28

1
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a
landmark 5-4 decision of the United States
Supreme Court which was argued February 28March
1, 1966 and decided June 13, 1966.

• The Court held that criminal suspects must be
  informed of their right to consult with an
  attorney and of their right against
  self-incrimination prior to questioning by
  police. The Miranda warning required by the
  Supreme Court in this case is an example of a
  prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in
  order to protect a constitutional right

2
Who was Miranda?

• In 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda (Ernest Arthur
  Miranda) (born in Mesa, Arizona in 1941, and
  living in Phoenix, Arizona) was arrested for
  rape. He later confessed to robbery and attempted
  rape under interrogation by police. At trial,
  prosecutors offered only his confession as
  evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and
  kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years
  imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to
  run concurrently. Miranda's court-appointed
  lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed to the Arizona
  Supreme Court which affirmed the trial court's
  decision. In affirming, the Arizona Supreme Court
  emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not
  specifically request counsel

3
What did the Court order?

• The person in custody must, prior to
  interrogation, be clearly informed that he has
  the right to remain silent, and that anything he
  says will be used against him in court he must
  be clearly informed that he has the right to
  consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with
  him during interrogation, and that, if he is
  indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent
  him.

4
The Court also made clear what had to happen if
the suspect chose to exercise his rights

• If the individual indicates in any manner, at any
  time prior to or during questioning, that he
  wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must
  cease ... If the individual states that he wants
  an attorney, the interrogation must cease until
  an attorney is present. At that time, the
  individual must have an opportunity to confer
  with the attorney and to have him present during
  any subsequent questioning.

5
What goes around comes around is that the
saying?

• Miranda was retried, and this time the police did
  not use the confession but called witnesses and
  used other evidence. Miranda was convicted, and
  served 11 years. After his release, he returned
  to his old neighborhood and made a modest living
  autographing police officers' "Miranda cards"
  (containing the text of the warning, for reading
  to arrestees). He was killed in a bar fight in
  1976. The police arrested a suspect, who
  exercised his right to remain silent, and the
  case was never solved.

6
Exceptions

• A confession obtained in violation of the Miranda
  standards may nonetheless be used for purposes of
  impeaching the defendant's testimony that is, if
  the defendant takes the stand at trial and the
  prosecution wishes to introduce his/her
  confession as a prior inconsistent statement to
  attack his/her credibility, the Miranda holding
  will not prohibit this. Harris v. New York, 401
  U.S. 222 (1971).
• A "spontaneous" statement made by a defendant
  while in custody, even though the defendant has
  not been given the Miranda warnings or has
  invoked the right to counsel and a lawyer is not
  yet present, is admissible in evidence, as long
  as the statement was not given in response to
  police questioning or other conduct by the police
  likely to produce an incriminating response.
  Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).

7
Exceptions

• There is also a "public safety" exception to the
  requirement that Miranda warnings be given before
  questioning for example, if the defendant is in
  possession of information regarding the location
  of an unattended gun or there are other similar
  exigent circumstances which require protection of
  the public, the defendant may be questioned
  without warning and his responses, though
  incriminating, will be admissible in evidence.
  New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).

8
Limitations

• Because Miranda only applies to custodial
  interrogations, it does not protect detainees
  from standard booking questions name, date of
  birth, address, and the like. Because it is a
  prophylactic measure intended to safeguard the
  Fifth Amendment privilege against
  self-incrimination, it does not prevent the
  police from taking blood from persons suspected
  of driving under the influence of alcohol without
  a warrant

9
(No Transcript)