You Have The Right To Remain Silent

By Author: Jamie Hanson
Total Articles: 3534
Comment this article

Although number of people have some knowledge with the phrase 'Miranda Rights', majority of the people are new with the actual origins of the Miranda Warning, which is often referred to as the right to remain silent.

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. Miranda was taken into custody by the police, and sent him to a Phoenix police station. Miranda was identified by the man who had filed a complaint against him. Miranda was then led to the interrogation room. After that, the police officers went to cross-examine him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the authority to a legal representative to be present during the questioning. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Located on the top of the acknowledgement was a typed paragraph mentioning that the acknowledgement was deliberate, without any promises of immunity or pressures. The written confession that was signed by Miranda mentioned that "with full knowledge of my legal rights understanding any statement I make may be used ...
... against me."

When Miranda's case was forward to trial, the prosecution used the written declaration as evidence against him. There was a request made by the defense to suppress the evidence. But, the judge let the confession to be declared. Miranda was convicted of all counts, which consisted of kidnapping and rape. On every count he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years, with the sentences running parallel. On Miranda's first appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that his rights had not been violated by the admission of the confession, and therefore affirmed the conviction . The basis for the decision was related to the reality that Miranda never particularly requested advice.

Finally, Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that based off the testimony produced by the police officers, and the admission of Miranda, it was obvious that Miranda had never been told in any way of his right to a legal representative, or his right to have one during his questioning. Moreover, the court also confirmed that Miranda was innocent as he did not know that he had the right to not be forced to convict himself. The Court also declared that without these warnings, all statement from Miranda were inadmissible. They went on to rule that, just due to the acknowledgement had a typed statement saying Miranda knew his rights, never reaches the level required for one to wisely waive their Constitutional Rights. The Supreme Court had to overturn the decision after the information was produced in the court.

The decision in Miranda stands for the plan that the prosecution might not use statements stemming from custodial examining of the defendant till it demonstrates the use of procedural safety measures effective to guard the freedom against self-incrimination. Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). This signifies that any time a person is in charge and subject to questioning, the police must explain the person of his rights, or the statements are not allowed in court.

These 'Miranda Rights' have certainly revolutionized the way police interact with suspects. Consequent Supreme Court cases have assisted to further define the rights of the convicted when interacting with law enforcement, however, Miranda remains one of the most significant and essential Supreme Court decisions.

Find out more about las vegas dui attorney and Las Vegas Attorney at lasvegas.lvnvlawyer.com