Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona
Year: 1966
Result: 5-4, favor Miranda
Related Constitutional Issue/Amendment: Amendment V, Self-incrimination
Civil Rights or Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties
Significance/Precedent: This established the Miranda Rights, that police had to read you your rights and inform you of your right to stay silent, for a public defender, etc. Before this the police were just interrogating people in custody and these people did not even know they had the right to such things. Miranda Rights are still read today. If these rights are not read, confessions are considered invalid.
Quote from Majority Opinion: "In dealing with custodial interrogation, we will not presume that a defendant has been effectively apprised of his rights and that his privilege against self-incrimination has been adequately safeguarded on a record that does not show that any warnings have been given or that any effective alternative has been employed. Nor can a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record...he was compelled by persistent interrogation to forgo his Fifth Amendment Privilege."
Summary of the Dissent: The dissent believed that it was not necessary or helpful to inform the accused of their rights. They believed that requiring rights be read for a valid confession would lead to criminals getting away with their crimes.
Quote: "To warn the suspect that he may remain silent and remind him that his confession may be used in court are minor obstructions. To require also an express waiver by the suspect and an end to questioning whenever he demurs must heavily handicap questioning. And to suggest or provide counsel for the suspect simply invites the end of the interrogation."
Six-word Summary: Accused have to be read rights
Year: 1966
Result: 5-4, favor Miranda
Related Constitutional Issue/Amendment: Amendment V, Self-incrimination
Civil Rights or Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties
Significance/Precedent: This established the Miranda Rights, that police had to read you your rights and inform you of your right to stay silent, for a public defender, etc. Before this the police were just interrogating people in custody and these people did not even know they had the right to such things. Miranda Rights are still read today. If these rights are not read, confessions are considered invalid.
Quote from Majority Opinion: "In dealing with custodial interrogation, we will not presume that a defendant has been effectively apprised of his rights and that his privilege against self-incrimination has been adequately safeguarded on a record that does not show that any warnings have been given or that any effective alternative has been employed. Nor can a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record...he was compelled by persistent interrogation to forgo his Fifth Amendment Privilege."
Summary of the Dissent: The dissent believed that it was not necessary or helpful to inform the accused of their rights. They believed that requiring rights be read for a valid confession would lead to criminals getting away with their crimes.
Quote: "To warn the suspect that he may remain silent and remind him that his confession may be used in court are minor obstructions. To require also an express waiver by the suspect and an end to questioning whenever he demurs must heavily handicap questioning. And to suggest or provide counsel for the suspect simply invites the end of the interrogation."
Six-word Summary: Accused have to be read rights
No comments:
Post a Comment