" />

WELCOME TO THE DAVID HITTLE SHOW WEBSITE

Miranda v. Arizona Case #8 of 10

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436; 86 S.Ct. 1602; 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966)

 

The facts of the case are these: The Book in this case didn’t dive into the facts of the case in depth, however it does say that: “this case deals with the admissibility of states obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assures that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not too be compelled to incriminate himself.”

 

The main issues of the case are these: Can the statements obtained from Miranda be used against him?

 

The holding in the case by a vote of 5 to 4: The Court finds that: “prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.”

 

Chief Justice Warren pens the opinion of the majority: Justice Warren starts his the opinion of the majority by stating: “…We deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accord his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.” He concludes by stating: “It is impossible for us to foresee the potential alternatives for protecting the privilege which might be devised by Congress or the States in the exercise of their creative rule making capacities.

 

Mr. Justice Harlan, who Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White join, dissenting….

 

Mr. Justice White, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Steward join, dissenting. They begin by stating: “…The obvious underpinning of the Court’s decision is a deep-seated distrust of all confessions. As the Court declares that the accused may not be interrogated without counsel present, absent a waiver of the right of counsel, and as the Court all but admonishes the lawyer to advise the accused to remain silent, the result adds up to a judicial judgment that evidence from the accused should not be used against him in any way, whether compelled or not.” They go on to say: “The rule announced today will measurably weaken the ability of the criminal law to perform these tasks. It is a deliberate calculus to prevent interrogations, to reduce the incidence of confessions and pleas of guilty and to increase the number of trials….” He adds to this: “In some unknown number of cases the Court’s rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and the to the environment which produced him, to repast his crime whenever it pleases him.”

 

Mr. Justice Clark, dissenting….

 

The Significance of this case created the “Miranda” rights. “You have the right to remain silent (5th Amendment), anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law (4th Amendment), you have the right to an attorney if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you. (6th Amendment).” The Court gave Congress the opportunity and the right to make or protect these rights better if they wished.