Miranda v. Arizona by James McElmurry

What it is

jmce7402 — 2023-12-11 20:21:22 UTC

The Fifth Amendment allows individuals to not say things that could get them incriminated. It also gave anybody the ability to request the presence of a lawyer while being questioned by police.

Before the Amendment

jmce7402 — 2023-12-11 20:23:45 UTC

Before countries had something like the fifth amendment, people could be forced to admit to crimes they did or did not commit I.E when in the presence of a monarch or a police officer.

During the time of very early America

jmce7402 — 2023-12-12 14:50:37 UTC

During the time of the Revolutionary War, people could be incriminated without being given the chance to prove they were innocent in the first place. This led the framers in 1787 to create the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which gave people the right to not self-incriminate

Before 1966

jmce7402 — 2023-12-12 18:15:48 UTC

Before 1966, there were a few tests put in place that were mostly targeted toward people of color.

The Totality of the Circumstances test

jmce7402 — 2023-12-12 18:16:40 UTC

A new test came out called the "totality of the circumstances", which looked at the persons education, physical health, and mental/emotional state.

The Voluntariness test

jmce7402 — 2023-12-12 18:17:13 UTC

The first of these tests was called the "voluntariness test", and it requires a judge to decide if the confession given was voluntary or if the police had used overly aggressive tactics to get it. This test was later revised to accommodate the "bright line" rule, which was a single test that checked the voluntariness of the suspect confession.

Effect of these test

jmce7402 — 2023-12-12 18:21:58 UTC

The tests left people feeling uncomfortable about how amorphous, or shapeless, the test was. This was also during the time when people began to rethink the third degree, which had been unfairly prejudicing people.

ndou6110 — 2023-12-14 22:30:22 UTC

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Mr. Miranda. The majority opinion concluded that "...defendants arrested under state law MUST be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before being interrogated when in police custody."

Thanks to Ernesto Miranda winning the case...

ndou6110 — 2023-12-14 22:36:15 UTC

Before interrogating defendants (that are within police custody), they must first be warned that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they might say just might be utilized against them in a court of law. However, they also have a right to an attorney: whether appointed by the court or by individual retention. They may also waive the aforementioned rights, but they can ask for an attorney at any time during the interrogation.

Some related circuit cases include:

ndou6110 — 2023-12-17 14:37:48 UTC

United States v. Kim

United States v. Thompson

United States v. Luna-Encinas

United States v. Romaszko

(also according to uscourts.gov)

ndou6110 — 2023-12-17 14:43:53 UTC

According to uscourts.gov, "The Court held that 'there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.'”

In other words, the 5th Amendment privilege is open to anyone and protect them by "curtailing" their "freedom of action" as to not further "incriminate themselves."