Miranda Case Brief Summary

2. Facts of the Case

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the rape and kidnap of an eighteen year old girl. Miranda was a schizophrenic. Miranda was selected by the victim in a lineup and then interrogated. Miranda did not initially confess but eventually gave in and signed statement of guilt. After Miranda’s trial and conviction, his lawyers appealed stating Miranda’s confession was forced. The case went to the Supreme Court with three others (O’Brien 1103).

3. Questions of the Court

Do police violate the Fifth Amendment if they fail to tell the suspect of his rights to silence and counsel?

4. Holding

Yes. The decision was five an one-half to three and one-half in favor of Miranda.

5. Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Warren delivered the

The Court has examined many cases dealing with police brutality that lead to confessions. The Commission on Civil Rights in 1961 made clear that , “some policeman still resort to physical force to obtain confessions” (O’Brien 1105). Unless safeguards are put in place these issue will not go away. In Chambers v. Florida the Court decided that interrogations could be physical or mental. Today interrogation are still in a private setting, and that privacy creates holes of information because few people know what is going on in the room. Police manuals and tets speall out tactics used with success. The manuals give recommendations and are used by law enforcement. The manuals make it clear that alone time with the suspect is crucial. The manuals also believe in isolating the suspect from the world and waiting for the suspect to crack. When normal tactics do not work, the police may decide to give false legal advice. Making the subject insecure is also a crucial tactic. Even without violence, the advice given in manuals is stripping individuals of their rights. In this case, Miranda is a mentally unstable individual with obscene fantasies. Police did not use proper safeguards to guarantee that statements were made freely in any of these cases brought before the Court. This environment is intentionally meant to intimidate and

Suspects cannot be forced to speak. The Fifth Amendment guarantees exist in every part of the country. In order for the Fifth Amendment to be meaningful, police officers must make suspects fully aware of their rights. This decision is not set in stone and will not prevent reform. The Court encourages Congress and the States to work to protect individual’s rights and effective police practices. However, unless the Court sees proof of better practices, then the following rights must be followed. If a suspect is going to be interrogated they must understand they have the right to remain silent. Silence would look bade in front of a jury anyways. The warning must be followed by a statement reminding the defendant that any statement can and will be used against him or her. That will make the defendant aware the dangers of speaking. The right to an attorney is crucial to the Fifth Amendment. Attorneys help make sure the suspects rights between speech and silence are protected. An attorney may be present during the interrogation. If the suspect requests an attorney before interrogation financial considerations may not come into play. The request cannot be rejected. The suspect must also be aware that a lawyer will be selected to represent the individual if one is not chosen. Otherwise suspects may think attorneys are only for the wealthy. The interrogation will stop if the suspect requests and attorney