Decision In The Miranda Case example essay topic

Unlike many other kinds of history, legal history often requires the disentangling of long chronological strands. Although commentators on the Fifth Amendment have tended to treat the privilege as a basic human right, slowly unfolding over the centuries, there are, in fact, a number of different principles, most of which have long been controversial, and still are, on both sides of the Atlantic. The old common-law rule was one of competence. No party to legal proceedings (civil or criminal) could give evidence on oath, because of presumed bias, though a defendant in a criminal case was expected to give an un sworn account of events, and his pre-trial depositions could be used against him. The United States Constitution made the rule one of compel lability -- no one could be compelled in a criminal case 'to be a witness against himself' -- while American constitutional law, the body of case-law which is only loosely related to the written constitution, has produced a third principle, that no one can be forced to accuse himself, whether or not legal proceedings are afoot. (Barlow, p. 86) This infamous Supreme Court case of 1966 deals with the rights of accused.

This case mainly encompasses Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate ones self. Ernest Miranda, a twenty-three year old drifter who had not completed the ninth grade, was arrested at his home and taken directly to a Phoenix, Arizona police station. There, after being identified by the victim of a rape-kidnapping, he was taken to an interrogation room, where he was questioned about the crimes. At first, Miranda maintained his innocence, but after two hours of questioning, the police emerged from the room with a signed written confession of guilt. At his trial, the written confession was admitted into evidence and Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. The United States Supreme Court was then faced with Mirandas claim that the confession was self-incrimination in violation of his constitutional rights.

The polices admission that neither before nor during the questioning had Miranda had been advised of his right to consult with an attorney before answering any questions or his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation solidified Mirandas argument. The Supreme Court was to consider the constitutionality of this case. The Court decided that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from interrogation unless proper procedure, such as the notification to the accused of his right to refuse to answer the questions given by the police and his right to have an attorney present, was followed. The ruling was in favor of Miranda.

The decision of the Miranda case has three parts which have changed the procedures of police stations in the United States. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings from being coerced to incriminate themselves. The privilege also applies to questioning after the accused has been taken in to custody. The Court also ruled that a confession by the accused can only be admitted if it is voluntary and no coercion by the police is present. Furthermore, if a confession is to be admitted into evidence than the accused must know and comprehend his Miranda rights.

These rights include, (1) you have the right to remain silent (2) anything you say can and will be used against you (3) you have the right to talk to a lawyer before being questioned (4) if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you before any questioning if you so desire. (Campbell, p. 117) The decision in the Miranda case was a 5-4 split. The five votes in favor of Mirandas argument can be explained relatively simply. The proponents of the decision felt that the right to not give evidence against ones self is a basic right of humans. Thus, those feeling this way voted for Mirandas argument. In contrast, Pre-Miranda view held that questioning a suspect was indispensable to law enforcement work.

Also, the privilege to not be a witness against oneself was not considered applicable to the states at that time. Moreover, the Pre-Miranda view held that a suspect is not being coerced to incriminate himself if there are no legal threats (meaning, that the accused is not threatened with perjury for testifying falsely or contempt for not testifying at all). Thus, the accused was not incriminating himself under this meaning. This accounts for the votes of the opponents of the final decision.