Facts: This case was filed by Ernesto Miranda and his 3 other co-defendants for failure of the investigating officers to warn them of their rights before conducting the custodial investigation. The defendants were charged for the crimes of rape, kidnapping and robbery. During the interrogation, the investigating officers failed to inform the Miranda of the legal consequences of the oral admissions made in the presence of the police officers (Burgan 25). Miranda claimed that the officers promised that they will drop the robbery charges if he will confess to the crime of rape. Miranda admitted that he had raped the victim and agreed to sign a written confession. He was charged for kidnapping and rape of the victim and the robbery of another female victim. A judgment of conviction was ordered by the lower court against Miranda. The case was filed before the Arizona Supreme Court.
Issue: The issue in these cases is whether or not the admissions of Miranda to the police officers during the custodial investigation can be admitted as evidence against in court.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that any person who is accused for a crime has the right to remain silent and should be warned of the consequences of any confession or admission done before the police that was made without the presence of a counsel. Hence, no citizen shall be forced to incriminate themselves to give evidence that can lead to his conviction for the crime charged. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda since the police officers admitted that they did not inform Miranda that anything he said can be used against him as evidence during the trial. He was also not informed that he can have a lawyer present while statements were made (Burgan 25). If the accused cannot afford to pay the services of a counsel, the court will provide him one. The right to remain silent has been recognized as “Miranda Warning”, which should be read to all persons who are being arrested in America. “MirandaWarning” is related to the concept of informed consent in such a way that the statements of the accused will only be admitted in court as evidence if such person is it has complied with these requisites: 1.) the accused is fully aware the right to remain silent but still proceeding with the confession; and 2.) the statements of accused were made with the assistance of a counsel. Otherwise, such statements cannot be used against the accused. Miranda Warning can be analogized as consent issues in mental health law in such a way that consent of the accused should be obtained freely and without undue influence before the patient receives any treatment, unless there is a clear showing that the patient does not have the capacity to give consent.
I agree with ruling of the Supreme Court in reversing the ruling of the lower court that the admission of Miranda cannot be used against him as evidence in court. The failure of the police to observe the procedural safeguards of the accused will create a doubt on whether compulsion was applied during custodial interrogations. If the accused was provided with Miranda Warnings still decided to waive his rights voluntarily, any admission made can be considered admissible in court because it was done out of his free will.
Works Cited:
Burgan, Michael. Miranda V. Arizona: The Rights of the Accused. Minneapolis: Compass Point Books, 2007. Print.
