Topic RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED Custodial Investigation

Case Name MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA

Case No. 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Ponente Chief Justice Warren
Brief Summary

The US Supreme Courts decision in this case addressed four different cases involving custodial
interrogations. It is found that in each of the cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers,
detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room cut off from the outside world. In none of the four cases
was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights prior to the commencement of the
interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and in three of them,
signed statements that were admitted at trial.

Facts

Miranda vs. Arizona

o On March 13, 1963, petitioner Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in
custody to a police station in Phoenix, Arizona where he was identified by the
complaining witness.
o He was then taken to an interrogation room where he was questioned by two police
officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession.
o During his trial before the jury, the written confession was admitted into evidence over
the objection of the defense counsel and the officers testified to the prior oral
confession made by Miranda during the interrogation.
o Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20 to 30 years
imprisonment on each count, sentences to run concurrently.
o On appeal, the Arizona SC held that Mirandas constitutional rights were not violated in
obtaining the confession, and affirmed the conviction stressing heavily the fact that
Miranda did not specifically request counsel.
Vignera vs. New York
o On October 14, 1960 petitioner Michael Vignera was picked up by the New York police
in connection with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days prior.
o He was first taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters, then to the 66th Detective
Squad where he orally admitted the robbery and placed under formal arrest thereafter.
o He was the taken to the 70th Precinct for detention where he was questioned by an
assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the
questions and answers.
o At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury where Vignera
was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to 30 to 60 years imprisonment.
o The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and Court of
Appeals.
Westover vs. United States
 o On March 20, 1963, petitioner Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by local police in
Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station.
A report was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted on a felony charge in
California.
o Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by the local
police. After that, the FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After 2
hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions which had been
prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation to each of the two robberies in
California.
o The statements were introduced at trial where Westover was convicted of the California
robberies and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each count. The conviction was
affirmed by the CA for the Ninth Circuit.
California vs. Stewart
o On January 31, 1963, Roy Allen Stewart was arrested in his home after having been
identified as the endorser of the checks stolen in one of the robberies following the
course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies where one of the victims died
due to injuries inflicted by her assailant.
o The police also arrested Stewarts wife and three other people who were visiting him.
o Stewart was thereafter placed in a cell, and over the next 5 days, interrogated on nine
different occasions.
o During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased
but that he did not mean to hurt her. At the time, the police released the four other
people arrested with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them to
the crime.
o At trial, Stewarts statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of robbery and
first degree murder and sentenced to death.
o The California SC reversed the decision holding that Stewart should have been advised
of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.

Issue(s)

WN statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation

are admissible against him in a criminal trial
WN procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself are necessary

Ratio

WN statements obtained from an individual who No.

is subjected to custodial police interrogation are
admissible against him in a criminal trial The Court held that there can be no doubt that
the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside
of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect
 persons in all settings in which their freedom of
action is curtailed in any significant way from being
compelled to incriminate themselves. As such,
the prosecution may not use statements,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming
from custodial interrogation of the defendant
unless it demonstrates the use of procedural
safeguards effective to secure the privilege against
self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we
mean questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way.
WN procedures which assure that the individual he Court further held that without proper
is accorded his privilege under the Fifth safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation
Amendment to the Constitution not to be of persons suspected or accused of crime contains
compelled to incriminate himself are necessary inherently compelling pressures which work to
undermine the individuals will to resist and to
compel him to speak where he would otherwise
do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be
warned prior to any questioning that he has the
right to remain silent, that anything he says can be
used against him in a court of law, that he has the
right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he
cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed
for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

Ruling

The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, REVERSED the
judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, REVERSED the judgment of the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and AFFIRMED the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in
Stewart.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Harlan, Dissenting

Justice Harlan began his dissent by stating that he believes the decision of the Court to represent poor
constitutional law and entails harmful consequences for the country at large. He argued that the new
Miranda Rule is not meant to protect against police brutality or coercion as Chief Justice Warren stated
but instead, discourages any confession at all.

Constitutional Premises
He further argues that this translation of the Constitution (meaning the Fifth Amendment) doesnt line
up with history and precedent, and that these news rules are highly debatable. In making reference to
a variety of past court cases where voluntary confessions were totally acceptable, he argued that there
are some exceptions to the definition and scope of voluntary (i.e. threats of danger, lack of sleep,
limits on access to counsel of friends, length of imprisonment, etc.)

His second main point is that the SC is too much on the side of the people, as opposed to the police. He
also argues that the word voluntary is too vague which would render it difficult for the court to know
what exactly is voluntary and what might have a bit of police pressure behind it. His major argument is
that Fifth Amendment rights do not necessarily exist in police stations. He believes that applying those
rights in custody makes it more difficult for the police to do their job. He further argues that the Fifth
Amendment should allow for mild pressure but not extreme pressure by the police.

Policy Considerations and Conclusions

Harlan accuses the SC of slowing down the justice process with the institution of the Miranda Warning
stating: "the Court is taking a real risk with society's welfare in imposing its new regime on the country.
The social costs of crime are too great to call the new rules anything but a hazardous experimentation."
He argues that we must give up some rights to gain strong government protection.

Justice White, Dissenting

White argues that it should not be the responsibility of the police to warn people about their rights. He
mainly has an issue with the term involuntary, arguing that if a confession is drawn out through the
natural flow of questioning, then its not involuntary. He also argues that if a confession is voluntary,
even with no warning that the confession could be used against the person who gave it, it should be
allowed in trial. Like Harlan, White argues that the new ruling is "at odds with American and English legal
history," and is a "departure from a long line of precedent". The "nub of (Whites) dissent" is that there's
nothing wrong or unconstitutional with the police asking questions of suspects even if the suspect
knows his right to remain silent.

Justice Clark, Dissenting in Part

Clark dissented with the majority decision in Miranda, Vignera and Westover but concurred with the
decision in Stewart. He argues that the Supreme Court has gone a bit too far with their decision that
there can be no interrogation if the suspect wants to remain silent. He states that interrogations and
confessions have long been a part of the regular investigation process, and that now the Supreme Court
is putting too many handcuffs on the justice system. Clark's last point is that the modified interrogation
system should be followed by letting the suspect know about their rights, and then continue the
questioning. If the state can prove that the warning was given at some point, then any confession gained
from the interrogation is voluntary and can be used.