Arizona case was brought to the Supreme Court, the Court was sending a clear signal to law enforcement: constitutional guarantees of due process for suspects had to be maintained, otherwise confessions would not be admitted in court and convictions would be overturned. On March 13, , Ernesto Miranda was arrested under the charges of rape, kidnapping, and robbery. He was brought into the police station, where he was interrogated for two hours.
During the interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing all crimes against him on a recording. However, he was not read his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney. Miranda was found guilty of all charges and sentenced to 20 — 30 years in prison. After his conviction, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The case was argued in front of the Supreme Court on February 28th, March 1st and 2nd of The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda in a 5 to 4 decision. This means law enforcement may not make claims that could incriminate suspects during interrogations with acknowledging them about their 5 th amend right to not incriminate themselves.
On the other hand, the dissenting opinion was written by Justice Harlan and was joined by Justices White and Stewart. Justice Warren wrote the majority opinion. The Supreme Court claimed, through the exclusionary rule, that statements obtained from defendants while being held in custody were only admissible in court if they were preceded by certain procedural safeguards, in order to protect the Fifth Amendment.
Indeed, the accused must be made clearly aware of his privilege against self-incrimination and must have the possibility to exercise this privilege. These procedural safeguards include informing suspects of their right to remain silent, warning them that anything they say may be used against them in court, and notifying them of their right to an attorney, either chosen by the defendant or appointed to them if they lack the financial resources.
Therefore, if the suspect indicates at any time that he wishes to remain silent or to consult with a lawyer, all interrogation must cease. The accused can also decide to waive exercise of these rights, as long as this decision is made willingly, consciously and intelligently.
He claimed this decision undermines the efficiency of law enforcement, for which custodial interrogation is an essential tool. Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion. Moreover, before this decision, the Court had already developed an effective approach to deal with the admissibility of confessions. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.
Westover v. United States: Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After two-and-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California.
These statements were introduced at trial. Ohio as the basis for excluding the confessions. In the decision of United States v. Upcoming Events Explore our upcoming webinars, events and programs.
View All Events. Invest In Our Future The most effective way to secure a freer America with more opportunity for all is through engaging, educating, and empowering our youth. Published in December All rights reserved. Check local listings. Reproduction courtesy of the Arizona Department of Corrections Miranda v. Arizona In Miranda v. Arizona , 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 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.
0コメント