When we get so many entries, and have only one award, picking the winner can be challenging! We’d like to present this Honorable Mention essay by Julia J. Medina, from Hillsborough Community College (HCC) – Ybor City Campus, where she is working towards a Paralegal/Legal Assisting Advanced Technical Certification. Thank you for your entry Julia
For information on participating in Brandon Legal Group’s $1,000 Scholarship, click here.
The Miranda Warnings Rights Throughout the Years
Nowadays, as safeguard against any probability of police intimidation or forcible approaches during interrogations, we have the Miranda Warning rights or Miranda Rules, a historic event. The 1966 decree arose in a period when civil rights violence and development coincided, of rising crime rates and significant criminal justice restructurings. Before the establishment of the Miranda Warning rights, confessions or admissions require to be only voluntary by the suspect. Police officers were in a tough situation as they were confronted with evidence at court trials that an individual’s mind was not sound or was in circumstantial duress when he or she provided the confession. After some redefinition, the Miranda rights are as important today, as they were 51 years ago; yet, they do not apply to every single case.
On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. The defendant, Ernesto Miranda, due to intimidating and aggressive law enforcement questioning methods, confessed to several crimes, was convicted, but his conviction was later overturned. The highest court in the United States declared that each time an individual is in police custody and is under interrogation, he or she must be informed of the Fifth Amendment right not to reveal any self-incriminating statements before being interrogated. This announcement means the interrogation must come after the Miranda Warnings have been invoked (Mirandized). Conversely, some suspects waive their rights after been Mirandized and speak to law enforcement agents freely without a lawyer present.
However, in 2010, The Supreme Court dictated that after two weeks from the first questioning, police interrogation of the accused could begin a second time even if he or she has already raised the Miranda rights and refused to speak to law enforcement officers Police custody is when a person is deprived of freedom or is arrested. Being under police interrogation means a person is asked specific questions. The Miranda Warnings are:
- “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 have an attorney present during questioning,”
- “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you,”
- “You can invoke your right to be silent before or during an interrogation, and if you do so, the interrogation must stop,”
- “You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop.”
Currently, the warning language varies from one police area to another. Still, when using the Miranda Warnings, police officers must get a clear, affirmative, and intelligent response that the suspect comprehends his or her rights as they have been explicated. They can also ask: “Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?” and “With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” If the suspect stays silent to these questions, the courts would not interpret them as an adequate acknowledgement of the Miranda Warnings.
Similarly, when police officers interrogate a suspect in detention with no Miranda Warnings given, any declaration or admissions made by the suspect is assumed to be involuntary or unintentional; therefore, they cannot be utilized in felony cases. In addition, evidence revealed because of that declaration or admission will probably be tossed out of the court.
Furthermore, another area is guaranteeing the advice of the Miranda rights to those with language difficulties either, with inadequate or no aptitude to speak English or those who are deaf. The actual Warning is not hard, although distortions of words could mean whether the significance of the Miranda rights has been delivered or has not, since it is essential that every American exercise his or her constitutional rights.
The 51 years old Miranda rights ruling’s legacy perseveres. Everyday people, law communities, Latino populations, and human rights organizations throughout the United States see the Miranda Warnings as a legal need. Today, Miranda Warnings continues to develop and criminal justice professionals see what up-to-date exceptions and verdicts come out every year.
References 1- FindLaw. Miranda Rights and the Fifth Amendment. Criminal Law. Retrieved from criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html 2- CNO Review. (2016, May). A fundamental Framework. Retrieved from www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2016/MirandaCNOReview.pdf
