•

Ernesto Miranda didn't know he had a right to remain silent

•

Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to a rape

•

circumstantial evidence

•

evidence that is not based on direct observation or physical evidence

•

the police interrogated him for two hours without telling him he didn't have to answer their questions

•

in the end, he confessed

•

this confession was used as evidence against him in court

•

he was convicted

•

his rights were violated

•

the Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

•

this means that the police can't force a confession out of you and then use it at your trial

•

in the 1960s, police didn't routinely video tape interrogations

•

a judge may be able to figure what a defendant had said or how long he had been interrogated, but it would be hard to figure out what his state of mind was

•

it would be hard to tell if a confession had been coerced

•

or if there was unduly psychological pressure on a suspect during interrogation

•

e.g. police say they know he did it and this is his one chance to tell his side of the story

•

if you tell someone he has a right to remain silent, if he talks afterwards, you can be pretty sure he is doing so voluntarily

•

the Miranda warning makes sure:

•

confessions aren't coerced

•

judges can tell they haven't been coerced

•

what the Miranda warning doesn't do:

•

it doesn't create the right to remain silent, the Fifth Amendment does that

•

it doesn't create the right to have a lawyer, that's in the sixth Amendment

•

Miranda requires police to tell you

•

if they don't, then they can't later use anything they say against you

•

Miranda's confession was excluded but he was convicted anyway

•

is Miranda a good decision?

•

in favor of Miranda

•

it is good for people to know their Constitutional rights

•

against Miranda

•

the exclusionary rule generally only protects the guilty and benefits the innocent only indirectly

•

in one sense, Miranda protects the guilty, as the innocent have nothing to hide

•

they don't lose anything by talking to police

•

but that's not necessarily true

•

people do make false confessions

•

this is something that doesn't happen with the Fourth Amendment

•

people don't manufacture false evidence and put it in their houses

•

so it does actually benefit people who might get pushed into a false confession at an emotional moment, etc.

•

the Miranda warnings themselves are not in the Constitution

•

where do judges get the power to require them?

•

Miranda is an example of the Supreme Court being quite aggressive in managing law enforcement

•

originally unpopular

•

some called for impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren

•

a response to that court's decision regarding race, e.g. Brown v Board of Education (1954)

•

Richard Nixon campaigned against Miranda

•

as President appointed justices that he thought would overrule it

•

over the years, it was narrowed down, exceptions were created

•

but the decision itself was never overturned

•

congress passed a law to overrule Miranda just as they did to overrule the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

•

to tell the court to forget the Miranda decision and just tell if the confession was voluntary

•

in 1999 the court ordered them to and then went to decide that the law was valid

•

Congress could overrule Miranda because Miranda wasn't based on the Constitution

•

Supreme Court reviewed this in a case called Dickerson

•

(2000), upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona.

•

there were not five justices who would overrule Miranda, but might have been five who would go along with congress when it tried to change the rule

•

it turned out a resounding no: 7-2

•

Miranda doesn't create new rights

•

it just makes sure people know their rights

•

makes sure those rights are available to everyone

•

therefore it is based on equality

•

one of the themes of the Warren court

•

"Constitutional laws aren't just for white people, they aren't just for men, or just for the rich"

•

Miranda says: rights aren't just for those who know about them already