Citation. Miranda v.

Arizona
Brief Fact Summary. The defendants offered incriminating evidence during police
interrogations without prior notification of their rights under the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution (the “Constitution”).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Government authorities need to inform individuals of their

Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest.

Facts. The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) consolidated four
separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during
police interrogations.
The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda (“Mr. Miranda”), was arrested for kidnapping
and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify
Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation.
The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his
rights.
The second Defendant, Michael Vignera (“Mr. Vignera”), was arrested for robbery. Mr.
Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest, and he was held
in detention for eight hours before he made an admission to an assistant district
attorney. There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights.
The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover (“Mr. Westover”), was arrested for two
robberies. Mr. Westover was questioned over fourteen hours by local police, and then
was handed to Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agents, who were able to get
signed confessions from Mr. Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr. Westover of
his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart (“Mr. Stewart”), was arrested, along with
members of his family (although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his
family) for a series of purse snatches. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart was
notified of his rights. After nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes.
Issue. Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their
Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate
the defendants?
Held. The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights, specifically: their right to remain silent; an explanation that anything
they say could be used against them in court; their right to counsel; and their right to
have counsel appointed to represent them if necessary. Without this notification,
anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation will not be admissible in court.

1
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects,
prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an
attorney and against self-incrimination . The case began with the 1963 arrest of
Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and
robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During
the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which
the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a
history of mental instability, had no counsel present. At trial, the prosecution's case
consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and
kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona
Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession.
The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by  Chief Justice Earl Warren , ruled
that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a
criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to
an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is
compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the
right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which
guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.

The Court maintained that the defendant's right against self-incrimination has long been
part of Anglo-American law as a means to equalize the vulnerability inherent in being
detained. Such a position, unchecked, can often lead to government abuse. For
example, the Court cited the continued high incidence of police violence
designed to compel confessions from a suspect. This and other forms of
intimidation, maintained the Court, deprive criminal suspects of their basic
liberties and can lead to false confessions. The defendant's right to an attorney is an
equally fundamental right, because the presence of an attorney in interrogations,
according to Chief Justice Warren, enables "the defendant under otherwise compelling
circumstances to tell his story without fear, effectively, and in a way that eliminates the
evils in the interrogations process."

Without these two fundamental rights, both of which, the Court ruled, "dispel the
compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings," "no statement obtained from the
defendant can truly be the product of his free choice."

Thus, to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law, the Court
devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained
and interrogated. These mandatory "Miranda Rights" begin with "the right to
remain silent," and continue with the statement that "anything said can and will
be used against [the defendant] in a court of law." The police are further compelled
to inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for (or, if necessary,

2
provide for) a defendant's attorney who can accompany him during interrogations.
Because none of these rights was afforded to Ernesto Miranda and his "confession"
was thus unconstitutionally admitted at trial, his conviction was reversed. Miranda was
later retried and convicted without the admission of his confession.

Miranda v. Arizona, in creating the "Miranda Rights" we take for granted today,
reconciled the increasing police powers of the state with the basic rights of individuals.
Miranda remains good law today.

The Miranda rights stem from the landmark decision of the United States Supreme
Court in Miranda vs. Arizona. The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under
custodial investigation has the right to remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will
be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before
being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he
cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires.

Section 12, Art. III.

1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof

shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as
well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.

MIRANDA/CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION RIGHTS

These are the rights to which a person under custodial investigation is entitled. At this
stage, the person is not yet an accused as there is yet no case filed against him. He is
merely a suspect.
The following are the rights of suspects:
1. Right to remain silent; (2013 Bar)
2. Right to competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice;

3
 3. Right to be reminded that if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he would be
provided with one;
4. Right to be informed of his rights;
5. Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means
which
vitiate the free will;
6. Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or similar forms
of detention;
7. Right to have confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights
considered inadmissible in evidence.
(Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, June 13, 1966) (2013 Bar)
NOTE:
Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the
moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the interrogation must
cease until an attorney is present. The “Miranda Rights” are available to avoid
involuntary extrajudicial confession. The purpose of providing counsel to a person under
custodial investigation is to curb the police state practice of extracting a confession that
leads appellant to make self-incriminating statements.

R.A. 7438 - An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation and the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating
Officers.