Farwell, BenjaminCJU 134Chp. 8, Pg 286 Miranda V Arizona FACTS: On March 16, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights, although the officers admitted at trial that Mr.
Miranda was not appraised of his right to have an attorney present, and that his statement was made “without threats or promises of immunity and full understanding of my legal rights…. ” ISSUE: Did the failure to explicitly notify Mr. Miranda of his right to remain silent and have legal counsel present violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? DECISION: Yes, his protection against self-incrimination was violated OPINION: Custodial interrogations are, in and of themselves and by their very nature, persuasive and influence the conduct of those being interviewed.
The detention, isolation, and control exerted over individuals in custody make them more susceptible to subtle-coercion and “…compel [him] to speak where [he] would otherwise not do so freely…” and that “…the insistence of, and confidence in his guilt make ware away at his ability to resist…” In order to ensure that the interviewee retains agency over his right against self- incrimination, an explicit statement must be made, enumerating their various rights and asking for comprehension before proceeding with the interview.
This must include their right to remain silent, and a warning that anything they say can, and will be used against them; this ensures the individual understands that an adversarial process ash been initiated. The interviewee must be made aware that even if he cannot afford counsel, one will be provided for him, so that he/she understands that they are entitled to council, regardless of whether or not they can afford it.
Further, should the individual avail himself of his right to counsel, the interview must immediately halt until counsel is present. If the state should claim that the individual waived his right to counsel, the burden of proving that he/she did so willing and without coercion will be theirs alone, as they are the only one’s capable of providing such evidence. Failing to take these steps strips individuals of heir Constitutional protections, as their ability to exercise these rights is tied to their awareness and understanding of the situation and their ability to invoke said rights without obstruction, simply signing a statement that they are “aware” of their rights denies them the fundamental understanding necessary to exercise them. Thus, without be clearly and precisely informed of their rights, prior to the commencement of an interrogation, those in custody are not free to exercise their rights regardless of any circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
POINT: The author uses Miranda v Arizona to crystalize an essential component of Fifth-Amendment protections, the established ‘Bright-Line” rule. The holding in Miranda made it necessity to inform those taken into custody of their rights, prior to engaging them in an interrogation. Simply being in custody erodes the will and confidence of the individual; being controlled and removed totally from determining the course of events affects the manner in which individual conduct themselves, compromising their judgment and reasoning.
In order to safeguard against these deleterious effects, those in custody must be informed of their right to call a halt to the interview, consult counsel, and refuse to speak without fear of consequence of further detention as a result. POSITION: AGREE F. I. S: Miranda was never informed of his right to remain silent, was refused access to counsel, was repeatedly told he was a “sexual deviant” and forced to sign a statement of understanding.