I hear the Miranda rights given on television shows all the time. What is the origin of Miranda rights?

Miranda rights rise out of a 1966, United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. In March of 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl.

At that time, Miranda was twenty- three years old, was indigent and his educational accomplishment was only as high as one half of the ninth grade. He was examined by a medical doctor who both said he had an emotional illness, of the schizophrenic type but also said he was alert, intelligent within normal limits, competent to stand trial and sane within the legal definition He had been arrested numerous times and continued to do so after this famous case bearing his name. Miranda actually capitalized on this case by selling autographed Miranda warning cards for $1.50 each. Miranda eventually lost his life in a 1976 bar fight after he was stabbed.

After Miranda was picked up he was placed into a lineup so that the victim could hopefully identify her assailant. Miranda was identified and taken by two officers into a separate room to be interrogated. The interrogation started at about 11:30 a.m. and though he initially denied guilt for the crime, within two hours or less Miranda had given a detailed oral admission and then wrote out the admission, which was signed by him.

The United States Supreme Court in its majority opinion spelled out that prior to any questioning of a suspect by police that the suspect must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, that any statement that the suspect/ accused makes may be used against them in Court and that they have the right to have counsel (a lawyer) present for questioning whether that lawyer is retained by the suspect or appointed by the Court. The suspect may waive his or her rights if the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If he or she has answered some questions, they can still invoke the rights to not answer further questioning. The suspect can await an attorney to consult with them before answering any questions or refuse altogether to answer questions.

The Court stated that interrogation had proceeded from a one time practice of some police to physically beat an admission out of the suspect or to question the suspect at length until they obtained an admission to more of a psychological interrogation rather than a physical one.

The Supreme Court majority opinion went on to say that the Fifth Amendment is extended to suspects or defendants even outside of the courtroom in that they have a right not to incriminate themselves (remember the television adage of “I plead the Fifth”). Even though the Fifth Amendment allows one a right not to incriminate themselves, they can still make a statement and even confess to the crime. It was the opinion of the Court that the statements obtained from Miranda were not done in a manner in which he was protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Of interest were other cases, which considered the Miranda warnings as well as other Constitutional issues. Such a case included the 1977 Brewer v. Williams, Supreme Court case. When Williams was picked up for the abduction (eventually murder charge as well) of a ten-year-old girl, one of the arresting officers was familiar with the defendant. Williams was a mental institution escapee but was also known to be deeply religious. Williams was given the Miranda warnings and upon advice from counsel, Williams refused to answer questions. However the officer knowing of Williams religious convictions tricked him by remarking that the poor weather would cause low visibility and that with several inches of snow being expected it would be difficult to find the little girls body. He went on to say that the girl should be entitled to a Christian burial since she was abducted on Christmas Eve and murdered.

Williams incriminated himself through several statements which allowed police to find the body. The police detective had isolated Williams during the ride to jail and questioned him even though he knew Williams already had a lawyer. The question revolved around whether Williams had waived his rights. After consideration that he had consulted with two attorneys and had stated he did not wish to talk it was enough for the justices to vote in the majority that Williams had not waived his rights and further that he gave no notice to his lawyers of waiver and was protected under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Another Arizona case, Edwards v. Arizona from 1981 involved defendant Edwards who received Miranda warnings but agreed to answer some questions. Edwards tried to make a deal and when told by police that they had no authority to do so, Edwards asked for an attorney. Edwards was later told without the presence of an attorney that he had to talk to them and that they had the taped confession of Edwards accomplice. Edwards listened to several minutes of the confession and then said he wanted to talk and he incriminated himself. He was convicted and on appeal the Arizona Supreme Court determined he had voluntarily and knowingly waived his rights. The United States Supreme Court held that he had not waived his right to counsel, believing that such waiver had not been knowingly and intelligently relinquished.

This article is informative only and not meant to be all inclusive. Additionally this article does not serve as legal advice to the reader and does not constitute an attorney- client relationship. The reader should seek counsel from their attorney should any questions exist.

"No representation is made that the quality of legal services performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers."

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.