The Miranda versus the State of Arizona case raised questions which go to the roots of the very concepts of American criminal jurisprudence and the restraints society must observe, consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, it dealt with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege, under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, not to be compelled to incriminate himself.

Miranda versus the State of Arizona was the case that forever changed the principles governing police interrogation, and set new rules to protect the rights and the privileges of the people in the United States of America. Procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed.

 FACTS OF THE MATTER

Early in 1963, an 18- year old woman was kidnapped and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigated the case and arrested mentally disturbed man named Ernesto Miranda.

After about two hours of questioning and being identified

 in a police lineup, Miranda  confessed and  signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer. His confession was used at trial and was subsequently convicted for kidnapping and rape.

On appeal, it was pointed out by Miranda’s  lawyers that when the police arrested  Miranda  he was not told his rights, as stated in the Fifth Amendment. According to the Amendment anyone, including foreigners, arrested in the United States has certain rights and privileges that should be spelled out for them at the time of the arrest. These rights are designed to ensure that everyone has the right to due process of the law, which states that a person’s rights, liberty, and property cannot be violated without a proper trial.

 Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning,  persons must be given what came to be known as “Miranda warnings:” that they have the right to remain silent; that anything they say may be used as evidence against them; that they may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by themselves or appointed by the court; and that they have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney.

This case has provided a yardstick for police action against persons in the event of their arrest.  It was said that the police cannot use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.

 Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.

Hence, in the absence of other effective measures, procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed. It was also observed, that where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Hence, this ruling provided certain safeguards for arrested persons and prevents abuse of police power.

As such it was stated that the statements from Miranda were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination.

The above case has been a mainstay of the procedure in criminal law throughout the world and has laid down rules, which are essential to the proper functioning of the criminal system.

-Ragini