Miranda_Decision

In the spring of 1963, Ernesto Miranda confessed to the rape of an 18 year old girl two days after he had been arrested for robbery. Miranda was a career criminal, and the Phoenix police had no doubt that they had the right man. They had a written confession from him, as well as the testimony of his victim. It turned out, however, that this so-called “open-and-shut case” has influenced the foundations and structure of American legal history. His attorney, Alvin Moore, objected to Miranda’s written confession on the basis that it was coerced and written without an attorney present. (In fact, it said so.) Moore’s objection was thrown out of court, and Miranda was sentenced to a term of 20 to 30 years on each charge of rape and kidnapping, mostly based on the confession. Filing as a pauper, several attorneys took up the constitutional issue that arose due to this conviction. They argued that Miranda’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” (Charters of freedom) The key phrase here is “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” His attorneys argued before the United States Supreme Court, that because Mr. Miranda was never informed of his right to have an attorney present during his questioning, that the conviction against him based on the confession, was invalid and needed to be thrown out. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, agreed with this argument, and found for Miranda, dismissing his conviction. Miranda was later found guilty in a second trial that did not use the confession. This decision, known to this day as the “Miranda decision” has had a significant impact on the American legal system, and I personally believe that it was a positive impact overall. “The Miranda case was the culmination of this trend toward, as Time magazine put it, “moving the constitution into the police station.” It evolved out of a growing realization that false confessions were not uncommon and that the police could coerce without resorting to the rubber hose.” (Kelly) The Miranda decision shone a light on the constitutional right to have counsel during interrogation, as well as the right to a fair trial based on access to counsel. Before Miranda, confessions were often gained by the police under questionable circumstances, and the legal system had long turned a blind eye to some of these abuses. Everyone is now familiar with the Miranda card and the Miranda warning, where the police, upon arresting a subject, must inform that subject of their rights under the law. “The practical impact of this Supreme Court decision was the advent of the "Miranda" warning and the concern for the mandatory Mirandizing of suspects by law enforcement personnel prior to questioning the suspect of criminal activity while in police custody. Both concepts became an indelible part of law enforcement and were reinforced repeatedly both in practical policing activity and in television and motion picture police dramas.” (Scuro, 2000) It has been very much argued that Miranda restricts the ability of police to get confessions from criminals, so much so that Congress attempted to legislate against the decision. The positive effect of Miranda has been to make the public more secure in the knowledge that there are limits to police power and that they too, are subject to the laws of our country. References: Charters of freedom - the declaration of independence, the constitution, the bill of rights. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Kelly, Jack. (n.d.). Americanheritage.com / the Miranda decision, 40 years later. Retrieved from http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20060613-ernesto-miranda-rights-supreme-court-fifth-amendment-arizona-constitution-scottsboro.shtml Joseph E Scuro Jr. (2000,October). Miranda warning is here to stay! Law & Order, 48(10), 22-23. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 63376476).