The Story Behind Miranda Rights

Summary

This video discusses the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, where Ernesto Miranda's conviction for rape and kidnapping was overturned because he was not informed of his rights. The ruling led to the creation of the now-famous Miranda warnings, which require police to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present during interrogation. The warnings were upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000, solidifying their place in American law. The video also covers Miranda's life after his release and his tragic death in 1976.

Takeaways

• 👮 Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department on March 13, 1963, in connection with the rape and kidnapping of an 18-year-old woman.
• 📝 Miranda signed a confession after two hours of interrogation, but he was never informed of his right to remain silent or to have legal counsel.
• ⚖️ Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer objected to the use of his confession, arguing that it was not voluntary since Miranda had not been properly advised of his rights.
• 🚫 The objection was overruled, and Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping, sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
• 📜 Miranda’s case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that his confession was inadmissible since he was not informed of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
• 📢 The Court's ruling established that suspects must be informed of their rights, known as 'Miranda warnings,' before police interrogations.
• 🛑 If a suspect invokes their right to remain silent or requests an attorney, interrogation must immediately cease.
• 🔨 Miranda’s conviction was overturned, but he was retried, and even without the confession, he was convicted again based on other evidence.
• 📚 The Miranda warnings were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2000 Dickerson v. United States case, maintaining their status as part of U.S. legal culture.
• ⚔️ Ernesto Miranda died in 1976 after a bar fight, having been in and out of prison for minor offenses after his release.

Q & A

What were the charges against Ernesto Miranda when he was arrested in 1963?

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the rape and kidnapping of an 18-year-old woman in Phoenix, Arizona.

What evidence initially linked Ernesto Miranda to the crime?

Circumstantial evidence linked Ernesto Miranda to the crime of rape and kidnapping.

Did Ernesto Miranda confess to the crime voluntarily?

Ernesto Miranda signed a confession that included a typed statement saying it was voluntary, but he had not been advised of his right to remain silent or his right to counsel, raising questions about the voluntariness of the confession.

Why did Miranda's lawyer object to the confession being used in court?

Miranda’s lawyer argued that because Miranda had not been advised of his rights before confessing, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded from the trial.

What was the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court regarding Miranda's conviction?

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld Miranda's conviction, emphasizing that he had not specifically requested an attorney before his confession.

What was the outcome of Miranda's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court?

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s confession was inadmissible because he had not been informed of his rights. This led to the establishment of the Miranda warnings.

What rights must a suspect be informed of according to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona?

A suspect must be informed of the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used in court, the right to consult with a lawyer, and the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation. If the suspect cannot afford a lawyer, one must be appointed.

What happens if a suspect chooses to remain silent or requests a lawyer during interrogation?

If a suspect chooses to remain silent or requests a lawyer, the interrogation must stop immediately. If a lawyer is requested, questioning cannot resume until the lawyer is present.

How did the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the Miranda warnings in the 2000 case of Dickerson v. United States?

In Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to uphold the Miranda warnings, affirming that they had become part of the national culture and were constitutionally required.

What happened to Ernesto Miranda after the U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Despite his confession being excluded, Miranda was retried, convicted based on other evidence, and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He was paroled in 1972 but later died in 1976 from a fatal knife wound after a bar fight.