Miranda: A Half-Century Legacy By Jerod Sun La Jolla Country Day La Jolla, CA
His gun clattered onto the floor. Sweat beads rolled down his face as the handcuffs clicked. The words reverberated in his head: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.”
In this quintessential finale of a late-night cop show, the suspect was given the “Miranda warning” (Baker, 177–178). Today, as an entrenched American norm, knowledge and reliance on the right of silence is almost ubiquitous (Amicus). However, few who worked outside the courtroom understood those pre-ingrained rights in the Fifth Amendment before the landmark
Miranda v. Arizona ruling. Since then, Miranda has become one of the most frequently cited cases in American history.
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda confessed after two hours of interrogation to kidnapping and rape, and his confession was admitted into court (State v. Miranda). Miranda appealed on the basis that he was not advised of his right to have an attorney. The Supreme
Court granted certiorari, scheduling his case for a hearing. Miranda v. Arizona represents the consolidation of four cases with the fundamental question: does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to police interrogation? (Van Meter, 76). In a controversial 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion in the affirmative.
“The prosecution may not use statements… unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” (Miranda v. Arizona).
Directors, screenwriters and actors were now given a new line to memorize. Every court case goes beyond a situational decision in setting a precedent, through the principle of stare decisis – “Let the decision stand” (Wilson, 427). While the Warren court was an activist one, Miranda was the inevitable result of decades of Court jurisprudence regarding the Fifth Amendment (Marion, 3). Warren understood and made it clear that the basic right against self-incrimination extends far beyond Miranda itself, to the Constitution. The Fifth
Amendment states that one shall not “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (U.S. Const.) and said right was specifically encompassed. Henceforth, the privileges granted to a defendant in court — the right to counsel, the right to due process, and the right not to witness against oneself — were extended to the police station (Van Meter, 92).
The idea that convicted criminals could go free was anathema to many Americans. In the
Boston police commissioner’s words, “criminal trials no longer will be a search for truth, but a search for technical error” (Baker, p. 176). However, the underlying premise, that an innocent person will always object when confronted with a baseless accusation, is inappropriately simplistic (Amicus). As such, the remedy in the case of violation is rightly suppression of the testimony and a retrial. Admissibility would be allowed if the illegal action was done in good faith (Reaffirming) or in the immediate interest of public safety (Massachusetts v. Sheppard).
Anyhow, studies have shown that the rate of convictions did not change dramatically as Miranda rights became standard practice (Cassell, 1095-1099). The Court did not ignore the wishes of the country; Miranda protected the same citizens whom were speaking against it.
In the half century that has passed, Miranda remains the kaleidoscopic core of all contentions on violations of Fifth Amendment rights. While court jurisprudence on the Fifth
Amendment has ebbed and flowed, the principle of Miranda was intertwined into many future decisions. In 2000, the Supreme Court guaranteed Miranda further by ruling that the self- executing rights cannot be altered by passing a law (Dickerson v. United States). In addition, the
Court recognized that Miranda has become a part of our national culture (Lane). Furthermore, in
2004, the Supreme Court passed a unanimous decision stating that once judicial proceedings have been initiated, police officers cannot interrogate a defendant without counsel present.
(Fellers v. United States). All of these cases cited the universal precedent, the right to remain silent per the Fifth Amendment.
“This will be one of the most important opinions of our time,” Justice Brennan wrote to
Warren regarding the final Miranda opinion; (Sonneborn, 42) indeed, Miranda has become the authoritative precedent for defending the rights of the accused. Because of its prominence,
Miranda has gone further in protecting our civil liberties than any other court case. Society’s knowledge of common law protects the accused—rightly and wrongly—from violations of their constitutional rights. Miranda has decisively done just that.
Bibliography Baker, Liva. Miranda: Crime, Law, and Politics. New York: Atheneum, 1983. Print. Brief of the Rutherford Institute and the Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae in support of Petitioner, Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. _ (2013) Cassell, P. G. All benefits, no costs: The grand illusion of Miranda defenders. Northwestern University Law Review, 1996. Print. Clymer, Steven D. Are Police Free to Disregard Miranda? 112 Yale Law Journal 447, 2002. Print. Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 (2004) Lane, Charles. “Miranda Rights Need an Update.” The Washington Post 23 Apr. 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.