Legal Policy Short Paper

CJ 500 Sample Case Brief

 

Facts: Mr. Miranda was arrested at his residence, taken into custody, and subsequently brought

to the police station. While in custody at the police station, Mr. Miranda was identified by a

witness who made an accusation and complaint against him. Mr. Miranda was then interrogated

by police officers for approximately two hours. Mr. Miranda subsequently confessed to the crime

and gave a signed, written confession. Mr. Miranda was never advised of his right to counsel or

his right to remain silent. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury.

Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years

imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s

constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

 

Issue: Whether statements that are obtained from an individual who is in custody and being

interrogated are admissible at trial if the suspect has not been advised of his Fifth Amendment

privilege to remain silent and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

 

Ruling: Confession received in violation of an individual’s Fifth Amendment and Sixth

Amendment privileges are inadmissible in trial if the individual has not been advised of his or

her rights.

 

Analysis: The court held that

there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal

court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of

action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate

themselves. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

 

As such,

the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming

from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural

safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial

interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person

has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any

significant way. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

 

The court further held that

without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or

accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the

individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so

freely. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

 

Therefore, a defendant

must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that

anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the

presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for

him prior to any questioning if he so desires. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)

 

 

 

 

Conclusion: Based on the aforementioned reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled and

reversed the conviction of Edwin Miranda in the state of Arizona.

 

 

Reference

 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).