One night in March, 1963, Phoenix, Arizona. A girl aged 18 was kidnapped and raped by a man on her way home from work. After investigation, the police locked the suspect Miranda, a 23-year-old street thug.
I was in prison once. At the police station, the victim identified Miranda, and then the police questioned him for two hours. Finally, Miranda confessed and signed a written confession, admitting that she had committed rape.
There is a pre-printed text on the confession: "I made this confession voluntarily, without intimidation or promise of pardon." I am fully aware of my legal rights and understand that my statement may be against me in court. "
However, before the trial, the police did not explain to Miranda his right to remain silent and hire a lawyer. Miranda may not have read that passage, just as we usually don't read the exam records carefully in exams.
Since Miranda could not afford a lawyer, the court provided him with a public defender, Alvin Moore. In the trial of Arizona District Court, the prosecutor used Miranda's confession as evidence.
Lawyer Moore is very responsible to the client, pointing out that the testimony was obtained without the presence of a lawyer and was not entirely voluntary. But the jury accepted the evidence and Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Miranda refused to accept it. With Moore's help, she appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which was rudely rejected, and pointed out that Miranda did not take the initiative to ask for a lawyer for herself during the trial. However, Miranda and Moore insisted on taking the case to the Federal Supreme Court.
In 1966, the Federal Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the local court by a vote of 5 to 4, on the grounds that the police officer involved had not explicitly informed Miranda of his right not to be forced to testify against himself before interrogating her, and the confession was involuntary, so it was invalid. Therefore, the Federal Supreme Court clearly stipulates that before the trial, the police must clearly tell the interrogated person:
1. has the right to remain silent;
2. If you choose to answer, everything you say may become evidence against you;
3. Have the right to ask a lawyer to attend the trial;
If there is no money to hire a lawyer, the court is obliged to appoint a lawyer for him.
Miranda rule includes two aspects:
First, the right to silence. This has been known to the world and has become a powerful tool to protect the basic human rights of criminal suspects. The right to silence, that is, not answering questions, is an important right of criminal suspects under the principle of presumption of innocence, which is generally established in all countries in the world today, in order to reduce and avoid extorting confessions by torture, inducing confessions or fearing false confessions of power, and affirms that criminal suspects cannot be forced to testify against themselves.
Second, the right to get the help of a lawyer. The personal strength of the criminal suspect is not enough to ensure the "normal" interrogation, and the participation of lawyers plays a supervisory role in ensuring the legality and effectiveness of the interrogation procedure, which is essential in a certain procedure. Therefore, the government should provide free services for those who can't afford lawyers to ensure that everyone is equal before the law.
Extended data:
Controversy over Miranda's warning
There are many obstacles and challenges after the establishment of Miranda rights, and there are many disputes about whether to continue to implement Miranda rights.
Camsad, a law professor at the University of Michigan, pointed out: Miranda rights have changed the way police misled suspects in the past. He said that before Miranda's right was established, the police never told the suspect that he had a lawyer and the right to remain silent. They took it for granted that the suspect should answer questions.
If the suspect says he doesn't know the case, the police will tell him that we have evidence, you cooperate with us, and everyone's life is better, and we will reduce the charges against you.
After being arrested, the suspects are accused of committing a felony, and they are generally prone to nervousness and anxiety. The misleading of the police made them think that it was good for them to cooperate with the police. Therefore, Miranda's right helps to relieve the psychological pressure of suspects.
However, opinions vary. O 'Neill, a law professor at George Mei Sen University, believes that Miranda rights may be a good policy, but it is not stipulated in the Constitution. He said that in criminal investigation, extorting a confession by torture is one thing, and asking reasonable questions is another, even if the interrogated person is not told the right to remain silent.
I don't think the constitution stipulates the right of the police to tell suspects before interrogating them. The police sometimes make mistakes, and the suspects themselves spill the beans and confess. In this case, the problem of not using the suspect's confession as evidence to prove his guilt in court is more serious than that of the police.
For example, in the investigation of a murder case, although the police made a small technical mistake in informing the suspect of Miranda's rights, they got a confession from the suspect. Which is more important, finding the truth, upholding justice or respecting Miranda's rights? Obviously, it is more important to obtain testimony and evidence.
References:
Miranda Warning (Baidu Encyclopedia)