Suspects Need Their Miranda Rights

In criminal trials, a defendant’s confession often delivers evidence that is influential when it is the primary source of the prosecutor’s evidence. When a suspect is brought into police custody to obtain a confession or a statement, police officers are required to read the Miranda warning if they believe the confession will be used to convict the suspect. The constitutional basis for the Miranda warning and the conditions for a voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights were announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona.

Miranda v. Arizona, announced June, 13 1966, resolved four separate criminal appeals concerning the role of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in police interrogations of criminal suspects. An Arizona jury convicted Ernesto Miranda of kidnapping and rape after he signed a confession to the Phoenix detectives. Without a lawyer present, he was questioned by the police for two hours. Three other cases were given the same kind of treatment; Vignera v. New York; California v. Stewart; and Westover v. U.S. The California case had been by the California Supreme Court because there was no evidence that Stewart was told of his rights to counsel and his rights to remain silent. After the California ruling, the U.S Supreme Court declared that the convictions of Ernesto Miranda and the other two convicts as were overturned.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the court ruled that any statements or confessions made from a police interrogation of a criminal suspect would be considered involuntary and inadmissible unless the police provided the suspect with four warnings: the right to remain silent; the intent to use the suspect’s statements against the suspect in court; the right to an attorney during questioning; and the...

... middle of paper ...

...anda as an active set of guidelines; which should be continually transformed by the courts to reflect our changing ideas of the privilege against self-incrimination (Rushin, S).

Works Cited

Oberlander, L. B., & Goldstein, N. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(4), 453-471. doi:10.1002/bsl.453

Rushin, S. (2011). Rethinking Miranda: The Post-Arrest Right to Silence. California Law Review, 99(1), 151-178. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Seaborn, B., Andrews, J. F., & Martin, G. (2010). Deaf Adults and the Comprehension of Miranda.Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(2), 107-132. doi:10.1080/15228930903446732

Vernon, M., Raifman, L. J., & Greenberg, S. F. (1996). The Miranda Warnings and the Deaf Suspect.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 14(1), 121-135. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.