Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Miranda Rights Extra Credit

Does the responsibility of knowing your rights fall into the hands of the American citizen
or law enforcement? Should you be reminded of these rights or be expected to know them and
know how to exercise them? These questions were the basis of the Miranda v. Arizona case. Fifty
years later, the Miranda Rights are a citizens first, and most expected look into the justice
system and their rights.
Ernesto Miranda was a man who had a history of mental instability and only had a ninth
grade education. In 1963, Miranda was wanted for kidnapping and rape charges. After police
spotted his license plate, he went through normal criminal proceedings. The police arrested him,
picked out from a lineup, and then interrogated him for two hours. They told him that he needed
to provide them with down a written confession. On Ernesto Mirandas signed paper, it stated, 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. At his trial, Mirandas confession was the sole
piece of evidence used against him. The court sentenced him to 20-30 years in prison.
Ernesto Miranda was acknowledging that he knew that they would use his confession against
him in law by signing the paper. However, there was a key factor Miranda did not understand.
He was never explicitly told he could have a lawyer appointed to him. He had no legal advice
when they told him to write the confession. Ernesto Miranda filed for appeal stating that he was
unaware of his rights and that his confession was involuntary. The court overturned their
previous ruling and gave him a new trial. His confession, although written and signed by him,
was not used as evidence in his new trial.

This case sparked controversy all around the country. Did the blame fall into the hands of
the law enforcement for not informing Miranda of his rights? Should the court blame Miranda
for not understanding his government given rights and the terms of his signed confession? This
was the problem that the government had to decipher. The court overturned his confession
because it violated his 5th and 6th amendment right. The fifth amendment states that the judicial
system can not force anyone to testify against himself. The government cannot deprive a person
of due process, which is the need to fulfill all rights given to a person. The police did not inform
him that he did not have to sign the confession and that the government would use it in court.
The sixth amendment states that you have a right to a speedy, fair, public, and impartial trial. It
also states that you may confront your accusers, represent yourself, and have advice from
counsel. The court violated his sixth amendment by not appointing him a lawyer.
Since 1966, courts have refined the Miranda decision to clarify the rights of the accused.
Officers still have trouble balancing the aspects of obtaining a confession and following
regulations. In 2003, an officer withheld the Miranda Rights from Patrice Seibert in an attempt to
scrape together a confession. After the officer secured his confession, he informed Seibert of the
Miranda Rights and asked for a re-confession. In court, she claimed that not knowing her
Miranda Rights affected her confession. The court sided with Seibert and overturned her
conviction. This case resulted in the amendment to the Miranda Rights: a confession made before
the Miranda Rights have been read is inadmissible. In 2003, police arrested Michael Shatzer for
sexually abusing his three year old child. He exercised his fifth amendment right. In 2006, the
judge reopened the case because the child gave further details about the abuse. Shatzer waived
his right and confessed to abusing his child. He stated that because he previously exercised his

fifth amendment right, the court should overturn his confession. This set the precedent that once
the accused uses their fifth amendment right, they remain protected by it.
The Miranda Rights have saved numerous citizens from guilty convictions because of not
knowing their rights. It has also helped to convict many criminals because they could not use the
excuse of not knowing them. Fifty years later and many more years to come, cases will center
around the citizen knowing the rights given to them by the Constitution.

References
Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2016, from
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-casesummary-miranda-v-arizona
McBride, A. (2006, December 1). Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Retrieved January 5, 2016, from
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2016, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436
Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759
Missouri v. Seibert. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1371
Maryland v. Shatzer. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-680

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi