reply to this discussion post:

Case briefing chapter 9

Facts:

o Ernesto Miranda was arrested, questioned by police for two hours, and confessed to a crime without being informed of his rights.

o At trial, prosecutors used Miranda's confession as evidence against him over the objection of his attorney. Miranda was convicted.

o Three other cases were combined with Miranda's involving similar confessions obtained through un-counseled interrogations after arrests.

Essential Issue: Whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement to properly advise suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation, and obtain a voluntary waiver of those rights.

Holding: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not use statements arising from custodial interrogations of defendants unless they had first been informed of their rights and had waived those rights.

Rationale:

o The Court aimed to provide procedural safeguards to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere."

o It established guidelines that law enforcement must follow, including advising suspects of their rights to remain silent and obtain an attorney.

o This ensured suspects could knowingly and intelligently waive their constitutional rights before providing statements that could be used against them.

Source:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.

436 (1966)