Miranda v. Arizona
By the early 1960s, in response to the report, efforts by various bar associations to expand legal aid for defendants had resulted in a substantial increase in services albeit still with large areas of the country underserved.On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department officers Carroll Cooley and Wilfred Young, based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman 10 days earlier.[5] Attorney John Paul Frank, former law clerk to Justice Hugo Black, represented Miranda in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Miranda's favor that overturned his conviction and remanded his case back to Arizona for retrial.The Court also made clear what must happen if a suspect chooses to exercise their rights: If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ...In the absence of warnings, the burden would be on the State to prove that counsel was knowingly and intelligently waived or that in the totality of the circumstances, including the failure to give the necessary warnings, the confession was clearly voluntary.In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote that "nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities."In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him.After his release, he returned to his old neighborhood and made a modest living autographing police officers' "Miranda cards" that contained the text of the warning for reading to arrestees.[17] After the Miranda decision, the nation's police departments were required to inform arrested persons or suspects of their rights under the ruling prior to custodial interrogation or their answers would not be admissible in court.[18] Many American police departments have pre-printed Miranda waiver forms that a suspect must sign and date (after hearing and reading the warnings again) if an interrogation is to occur.With an opinion that stressed "the requirement that a defendant 'knowingly and intelligently' waive his Miranda rights," the Court reversed Garibay's conviction and remanded his case.[citation needed] In Dickerson, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Rehnquist, upheld Miranda 7–2 and stated that "the warnings have become part of our national culture".Justice Souter wrote for the plurality: "Strategists dedicated to draining the substance out of Miranda cannot accomplish by training instructions what Dickerson held Congress could not do by statute.[30] In dissent, three justices held that the court had "repeatedly and emphatically" determined that the Miranda decision established a constitutional right, and would have allowed such lawsuits.
Supreme Court of the United StatesErnesto MirandaL. Ed. 2dU.S. LEXISA.L.R.3dFifth AmendmentEarl WarrenHugo BlackWilliam O. DouglasTom C. ClarkJohn M. Harlan IIWilliam J. Brennan Jr.Potter StewartByron WhiteAbe FortasU.S. Const. amends. Vlandmark decisionU.S. Supreme Courtlaw enforcementinterrogatingevidenceFifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionlawyerself-incriminationcontempt of courtMiranda warningBerghuis v. ThompkinsAmerican Bar Associationbar associationslegal aiddefendantsLegal Services CorporationGreat SocietyLyndon B. JohnsonEscobedo v. IllinoisPhoenix Police DepartmentCarroll Cooleycircumstantial evidencecourt-appointed lawyerArizona Supreme CourtJohn Paul FrankGary K. NelsonChief JusticeSixth AmendmentFederal Bureau of InvestigationWarren Courttotality of the circumstancesJustice GoldbergJohn Marshall Harlan IIRobert H. JacksonRichard NixonFBI Uniform Crime Reportsclearance rateOmnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968Rhode Island v. InnisBerkemer v. McCartyNew York v. QuarlesCalifornia Supreme CourtRichard Allen DavisColorado v. ConnellyremandedDickerson v. United StatesChief Justice RehnquistJustice ScaliaMissouri v. SeibertVega v. Tekohparticular statutory cause of actionMiranda's VictimMichelle DannerUnited States constitutional criminal procedureList of criminal competenciesList of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 384Schmerber v. CaliforniaStansbury v. CaliforniaR. v. HebertR. v. BrydgesAmerican Bar Association JournalAmerican HeritageWayback MachineJournal of Criminal Law and CriminologyDuke University School of LawLaw and Human BehaviorCiteSeerXLevy, Leonard W.Origins of the Fifth AmendmentC-SPANLaw Library of CongressUnited States Fifth Amendmentcriminal procedureGrand JuryHurtado v. CaliforniaEx parte BainWong Wing v. United StatesMaxwell v. DowUnited States v. MorelandBeck v. WashingtonUnited States v. CottonDouble Jeopardy ClauseBlockburger v. United StatesGrady v. CorbinUnited States v. FelixUnited States v. DixonUnited States v. RandenbushBurton v. United StatesFong Foo v. United StatesAshe v. SwensonBurks v. United StatesEvans v. MichiganBravo-Fernandez v. United StatesMcElrath v. GeorgiaUnited States v. WilsonLudwig v. MassachusettsSmith v. United StatesUnited States v. PerezUnited States v. JornUnited States v. DinitzOregon v. KennedyBlueford v. ArkansasBartkus v. IllinoisWaller v. FloridaUnited States v. WheelerHeath v. AlabamaUnited States v. LaraPuerto Rico v. Sanchez ValleGamble v. United StatesDenezpi v. United States