Miranda Rights Familiar Part Of Law Enforcement

By Tom Emery

They are among the most recognizable words in American society, and no law-abiding citizen really wants to hear them. But they have become a cornerstone of American justice.

June marks the anniversary of Miranda vs. Arizona, a landmark Supreme Court case that established the famous words that must be read before criminal interrogations. These so-called “Miranda Rights,” including the phrase “you have the right to remain silent” and the right to an attorney, have become standard procedure in arrest and prosecution.

“Both a prosecutor or defense attorney will make sure those rights were properly given,” said Dan O’Brien, a former assistant state’s attorney in southern Illinois who has defended criminal cases in state and federal courts. “They will make sure those words were used to start the process in any interrogation.”

The rights stemmed from a 1963 incident in which an 18-year-old Phoenix woman reported that she had been abducted, taken to a desert, and raped. The alleged victim was given a polygraph test that proved inconclusive. A license plate check brought authorities around to Ernesto Miranda, who had less than a ninth-grade education, a history of mental instability, and a prior record as a peeping tom.

Miranda was arrested at his home and interrogated for two hours at a local police station, resulting in a written confession that he later recanted. The case was tried solely on his confession, and Miranda’s appointed defender, who was paid $100, called no witnesses.

He was found guilty and sentenced to an Arizona state prison, but appealed his conviction to the state supreme court, claiming that authorities had unconstitutionally gained his confession. The Arizona court upheld the conviction, and the case advanced to the United States Supreme Court.

The high court considered four similar cases in their decision, including Miranda v. Arizona. The basis was whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible in a criminal trial, and Fifth Amendment rights that ensure that no individual “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

In a 5-4 decision on June 13, 1966, the court ruled that Miranda’s confession could not be used as evidence, since he had not been informed of his right to an attorney, and was subjected to self-incrimination. The ruling invoked both the Fifth Amendment as well as the Sixth Amendment, which provides the right to legal counsel.

As a result, the court concluded that “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.”

The Miranda Rights have since become normal practice in criminal arrests, and some police departments now require signed documents stating that the rights were read. O’Brien, who is now in private practice in Carlinville, Ill., says that the rights are a part of the public consciousness.

“Those words are in the public awareness and on television all the time,” said O’Brien. “They’re so common that there is an expectation among the public that they will be read in a criminal case. Almost any trained police officer is going to understand the obligation to read those rights. It’s very rare today to find a case where they weren’t administered.

“One problem becomes exactly when those rights are read,” he continued. “In some instances, the police arrive at a scene, and aren’t sure what has happened, or who may be a party to the crime. They have to make sure the right person is being read the rights, and at the proper time.”

In some cases, other crimes come to light, and interrogators have to decide whether to administer Miranda Rights for different charges.

In addition, there are certain exceptions to Miranda Rights. Debate also arises as to whether they are fully understood by some defendants, particularly those who are mentally or intellectually challenged, or not fluent in the English language.

O’Brien adds that prosecutions rarely hinge on confessions alone. “Prosecutors will almost certainly look at availability of physical evidence,” he remarked. “They aren’t going to try a case based only on the confession, because so many false or self-serving statements are given in interrogations. Most people don’t realize how unreliable many confessions can be.”

Despite the Supreme Court’s decision and the apparent lack of evidence, Miranda was re-tried, this time without his confession, in October 1966. Once again, he was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison before his release in 1972. In January 1976, he was stabbed to death in the men’s room of a bar after a disputed poker game.

Today, the rights that bear his name have become catchphrases in the American vernacular. “Miranda Rights spell out the rights of the accused in simple terms,” said O’Brien. “They serve as notice that you are about to engage in a serious conversation that may well change your life.”

Tom Emery is a freelance writer and historical researcher from Carlinville, Ill. He may be reached at 217-710-8392 or [email protected].