You Have The Right To Remain Silent

Although most people have little awareness with the phrase 'Miranda Rights', majority of the people are unknown with the actual origins of the Miranda Warning, which is generally 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 transported 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 men proceeded to question him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the authority to a lawyer to be there during the interrogation. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Situated on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph mentioning that the acknowledgement was deliberate, without any promises of protection or intimidation. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession "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 confession as confirmation against him. The defense objected, asking for the evidence to be suppressed. But, the judge allowed the confession to be admitted. Miranda was charged for kidnapping as well as raping. On each charge 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 choice was related to the truth that Miranda never particularly asked advice.

Finally, Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court lined that based off the testimony presented by the police men, and the admission of Miranda, it was apparent that Miranda had never been told in any way of his right to a lawyer, or his right to have one during his interrogation. The court also stated that Miranda was never informed of his right to not be compelled to incriminate himself. The Court also declared that without these advice, all statement from Miranda were excluded. They went on to rule that, only because the confession had a typed statement saying Miranda had full knowledge of his rights, never reaches the level required for one to sensibly 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 proposal that the prosecution might not use statements rising from custodial examining of the defendant till it demonstrates the use of routine safeguards effectual to guard the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). This signifies that any time an individual is in custody and subject to questioning, the police must apprise 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. Following Supreme Court cases have aided to further describe the rights of the convicted when interacting with law enforcement, though, Miranda remains one of the most powerful and important Supreme Court decisions.