Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 467 (1966)
One day in early March 1963, a white girl in Phoenix, Arizona was raped. Kidnapped and raped by a young man with a Spanish accent. After a period of investigation, the police discovered a man named Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was born into a Mexican immigrant family, her father was a painter. He didn't like going to school since he was a child. He was a "street boy" and was sent to juvenile detention centers many times. Eventually, he dropped out of school in ninth grade to serve in the military and work odd jobs. He also had a poor work record, having been fired for being AWOL during work hours. Additionally, he was convicted of auto theft and served one year in federal prison. Miranda was 23 years old when this case occurred.
On March 13, 1963, the police arrested Miranda and took him to the police station. The victim identified Miranda. Police then took Miranda to an interrogation room where he was questioned by two officers. The officer failed to inform Miranda of her rights under the law. During the more than two hours of interrogation, the two police officers used all "legal" means to force Miranda to admit her crime, including the "one red and one white" interrogation strategy, and finally obtained a written confession signed by Miranda. . At the top of the confession was a standard pre-printed paragraph that read: "This statement is made voluntarily with full knowledge of my legal rights, without any threat or promise of immunity, and with the understanding that any statement I make It could all be bad for me." The jury accepted the statement and returned a guilty verdict. Miranda, with the help of a government-appointed lawyer, has been appealing the decision to the Supreme Court. In early 1966, the Supreme Court decided to accept the case, and on June 13, it ruled 5 to 4 overturning the verdict, stating: "(a)...(d) in the absence of any other valid In the case of such measures, the following safeguards of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution must be followed: Before any interrogation, the detainee must be clearly informed: 1. You have the right to remain silent and anything you say may become a threat to the prosecution. 2. You have the right to hire an attorney and have an attorney present during the interrogation; 3. If you do not have the money to appoint an attorney, we will appoint one for you (e) If before or during the interrogation. , the suspect expresses a desire to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he expresses a desire to see a lawyer, the interrogation must cease until the lawyer arrives. (f) If the interrogation is conducted in the absence of an attorney and a confession is obtained, the government has. The burden is on the defendant to prove that he has knowingly and reasonably waived his right to counsel. (g) During custodial questioning, the suspect will not waive his privileges in answering questions, and he may do so in a voluntary manner. In subsequent cross-examination, the right to remain silent is maintained (h) A confession of guilt or a plea of ??innocence by the accused is a prerequisite for admission, and the giving of a warning and a waiver of the right are prerequisites for doing so. .."The world-famous Miranda Rules were born.
The decision was drafted by Chief Justice Earl Warren of the Federal Supreme Court, and the Miranda case is one of the most controversial decisions made by Justice Warren. Many people also attribute the emergence of Miranda rules to this figure with a style of judicial reform. However, the creation of the Miranda Rules actually has its historical inevitability. "In the mid-eighteenth century, the common law was particularly concerned with the right of the accused to make a confession at his own discretion, and Blackstone cautioned that under the treason statute 'a confession made hastily and without safeguards... ..., should not be admitted into evidence.
'""But by 1836, policy again favored the admission of confessions. The approach adopted at that time was that no matter what the circumstances were, as long as the accused made a confession against himself, once it was effectively proved, it would be enough to convict him without any supplement. By the early 20th century, perhaps due to rising crime rates and cultural dislocation, the judiciary became more crime-fighting. In Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936), a Mississippi court relied on the testimony of a hanged suspect. Basis for conviction. By the 1940s, the landscape of coercive police interrogations had changed somewhat. During the interrogation process, the police gradually shifted from torture and threats to using more potential pressure methods to pressure the suspect, so that the suspect made unfavorable confessions in a coercive atmosphere. The Federal Supreme Court therefore expressed its interest in developing clearer tests of the arbitrariness of confessions. In addition, the racial problem in the United States was very serious in the 1960s. "The Supreme Court must have known that most of the appeals in confession cases involved black defendants," and "the Federal Supreme Court seemed to have restricted cross-examination as one of its policies." part of the racial equality agenda. "."Using potential coercion as a more insightful measure may be more advantageous for poorer, less educated defendants, thereby helping to alleviate the social and economic injustices that affect the criminal justice system." 20 In the 1950s and early 1960s, the Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in favor of defendants, leading many judges to adopt a more sympathetic attitude toward those who had been unfairly tried. The results have always been questionable to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court believed that they should formulate some rules to regulate criminal justice activities. In the 1964 case of Escobedo v. Illinois 378 US 478 (1964) In the judgment, the Federal Supreme Court clearly stated for the first time the absolute right to remain silent, and emphasized whether the defendant has given up the right to remain silent. To be precise, it is a right to know, emphasizing whether the defendant has given up the right to remain silent.
However, practice has shown that this jurisprudence is "ambiguous, confusing and restrictive", that is, it is of little effect. Therefore, "if the Federal Supreme Court wants to truly protect typical defendants, it needs to do more." Lots of work. This good remedy is of course the precedent of Miranda v. Arizona." Therefore, the Miranda rule, which was born in 1966, cannot be said to be the inevitable result of historical development and the social reality at that time.