1. Aim: What are the protections offered by the case of Miranda vs
Aim: What are the protections offered by the case of Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966

2. Miranda vs Arizona, 1966
Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, by the Phoenix Police Department for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old women 10 days earlier.
Miranda confessed to the crime in a written statement.
Upon conviction; Miranda was sentenced to 20 – 30 years in prison.

3. Questioning by the Police
Miranda was questioned by the police for two hours. At no time did the police tell Miranda that he had constitutional protections – nor was that required at the time.
After two hours Miranda confessed verbally and then agreed to write a statement which started “I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me”.

4. Lawyer Fight the Confession
Miranda’s court appointed attorney, Alvin Moore fought the confession stating that it was not voluntary because the police did not tell Miranda that he had the constitutional protection to “remain silent” and that he had the “right to an attorney” Both were denied.
After he was convicted, attorney John Paul Frank appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

5. Case of Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966
The case was argued over a three day period; 2/28/1966 – 3/2/1966 and was decided by the court on 6/13/1966
Voting in the Majority – Chief Justice Warren, Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas, & Clark
Dissenting Harlan, Stewart, Clark, White
The Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his or her rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Supreme Court of Arizona reversed and remanded.

6. Opinion of the Court
In a 5 to 4 decision – Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the court
“The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.”

7. Requirement of the Police if a suspect exercises his rights
Warren stated; “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning”.

8. Arguments of the Dissenters
Writing for the dissenters; Justice White wrote…
“I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process. In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity.”

9. Therefore, Ernesto Miranda’s conviction was overturned and a new trial was ordered without the confession which had to be excluded.

10. Miranda’s Retrial
Ernesto Miranda was retried in 1967 without the confession and was again convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years.
Miranda was paroled in in 1972 – after his release he began to autography police officers “Miranda Cards” which contained the text that officers read to suspects.
Miranda was stabbed to death during a fight in a bar on 1/31/ A suspect was arrested but exercised his right to remain silent and was later released due to the lack of evidence.

11. What are the Miranda Warnings?
In 1966, the US Supreme Court ruled that police must protect a person’s 5th Amendment right against self incrimination & 6th Amendment right to an attorney;
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?”

12. Miranda Warnings Line by Line
You have the right to remain silent
Which Amendment?
Anything you say can and will be used against you
You have the right to an attorney present during questioning
If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided to you

13. When is Miranda Warnings Required
The police are REQUIRED to read your Miranda warnings when you are being questioned beyond asking for name other personal information not pertaining to an investigation.
If a suspect is in custody and being interrogated for a crime in which they are suspected of taking part then you must be read your Miranda warnings also known as being Mirandized.

14. Circumstances when you DO NOT have to be read your Miranda warnings
Part of the normal arrest procedure.
You are talkative on your own.
The evidence is strong against you and the cops do not need information from you. (Probably Cause)
You are NOT being questioned.
When police are conducting a Stop, Question, & Frisk (SQF).