|
United States Supreme Court
This case was the controversial culmination of a series of criminal-rights decisions by the Warren
Court. Miranda attempted to make sure that states and law enforcement officials honored the Fifth
Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination. The majority opinion shows a distrust of confessions obtained
when the accused is held without counsel being present. The justices were well aware of the long history
of psychological abuse by police during interrogations, ranging in severity from the legendary "third
degree" to simply lying about suspects’ legal options. This decision reaffirms that Fifth Amendment
rights apply to all suspects in custody, whether in or out of the courtroom. Police must not assume that
defendants know their rights, but must make sure they are so informed. Any confession obtained in violation
of these rules is inadmissible in court. What are the so-called Miranda rights police must inform suspects
of?
Ernesto Miranda was arrested on a rape charge after being identified by the victim in a lineup. Under
interrogation he confessed to the crime, without being physically threatened in any way, but also without
being informed of his rights to silence or an attorney. On the basis of his confession he was convicted
and sentenced to twenty to thirty years. After this decision he was retried and sentenced to thirty years.
This decision prompted outcries that the Supreme Court was "handcuffing the police" and interfering
with their ability to maintain law and order. Conservatives, noting that the dissenting opinion called
this decision "poor constitutional law," have campaigned ever since for new justices who would
not "coddle criminals."
Under the leadership of Chief Justices Warren Burger and William Rehnquist the Supreme Court has consistently
undermined the Miranda rights but has stopped short of overturning the decision. The Warren Court pointed
out that this ruling should not hamper police in their work because confessions are a very small part
of evidence-gathering in any case. Is it wrong to make sure that all citizens suspected of crimes receive
the basic rights in the Constitution: "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself," and "the accused shall . . . have the assistance of counsel."?
|
