Frusti and Kerr 1

History and Effects of the Miranda Warning

Cailin Frusti and Bay Kerr

JPP 105: Foundations of Justice
Fall 2015
Professor Ashley
 Frusti and Kerr 2

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. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in

mind, do you wish to speak to me? (MirandaWarning.org). These words, commonly referred to

as the Miranda Rights, are known and recognized by virtually every member of the criminal

justice community. The Miranda Rights were established to ensure that a detained individual is

aware and fully understands the rights that are guaranteed to them in our countrys Constitution.

The Miranda Rights acknowledge the rights protected in both the fifth and sixth amendments,

and create the commonly recited phrase that informs the individual of these rights. However,

there was a time before the Miranda Rights were created, when police officers were not legally

obligated to proclaim the rights of the detained individual and ensure that they understand and

comprehend what their rights actually are. The Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona

established this in the 1960s, but there were decades prior to that in that the detained individuals

were not always aware of their rights. It is important to understand the history of the Miranda

Rights, the Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, and the effects it has on policing in our

society today.

Prior to the creation of the Miranda Rights, there was already a lot of attention focused on

custodial interrogations and confessions. The Supreme Court had already heard numerous issues

regarding such issues prior to Miranda v. Arizona, and many of these cases influenced the

outcome of the Miranda case. According to Roscoe C. Howard Jr. and Lisa A. Rich, Valparaiso

University Law Review, law officials prior to the Miranda decision looked primarily at the

voluntariness of a confession to determine if it was admissible. Individual departments also had

 Frusti and Kerr 3

their own version of informing their detained of their rights. One example of this was the Federal

Bureau of Investigations, commonly referred to as the FBI. They had their own way of informing

individuals of their rights, particularly those of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel,

even though it was not a legal obligation (Howard and Rich). It was pre-existing warnings, such

as the one created by the FBI, that helped mold and shape the creation of the Miranda Rights by

the United States Supreme Court.

On March 12, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the rape and kidnapping of the

eighteen year old victim ten days earlier. The police interrogated him for two hours before

making a written confession for the crimes. The officers did not inform Miranda of his rights, but

the defendant wrote in his written confession that he was aware of the rights guaranteed to him

(USCourts.gov). At his trial, Mirandas defense attorney attempted to persuade the judge not to

allow the jury to see his written confession because there was no evidence that showed that

Miranda was ever informed he had the right to an attorney or that he was not obligated to talk to

the officers. However, the court allowed the prosecution to include the confession as admissible

evidence for the case. Being allowed to view the written confession written by Ernesto Miranda,

the jury found him guilty of both kidnapping and rape. Miranda was sentenced to twenty to thirty

years for each charge (McBride). In June 1965, after spending two years in prison, Miranda sent

a petition to the Supreme Court to review his case, but it was denied. A group of three lawyers

took on his case and sent their appeal to the Supreme Court, and this time, they agreed to review

his case.
 Frusti and Kerr 4

When the United States Supreme Court accepted to hear Ernesto Mirandas case, they

had to look at whether or not his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was not

informed of his right to remain silent nor his right to counsel. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4

decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce

Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform

Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (McBride). The police are

obligated to tell the arrested individuals, such are Ernesto Miranda, of their rights guaranteed by

the fifth and sixth amendments. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, and

since Miranda had not been informed of his right to remain silent nor his right to an attorney, his

Constitutional rights were violated. In order to ensure that such an issue does not occur to

another detained individual, the Court established statements, which the police are legally

required to recite to the individuals of whom they detain, prior to questioning them in any way.

These statements are what we now refer to as the Miranda Rights.

Since the creation of the Miranda Rights, many changes and additions have been

implemented to the criminal justice system. In 2013, the Miranda Rights were involved in a

Supreme Court Case, Salinas v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a

person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent (Holland).

In this 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court, the Court established that if a defendant invokes his right

to remain silent before he or she has been read their Miranda Rights, it can be used against them

in the court of law. The interpretation of Miranda in its original Supreme Court case strongly

influenced the Supreme Court to rule on Salinas v. Texas in this more recent case. Had Miranda

Rights never been created, this question never would have been an issue. Police officers would
 Frusti and Kerr 5

not have been required to inform the defendant of his rights, and the defendants silence prior to

the reading of his rights would not have been an issue. The Miranda Rights played a major role

in this case and heavily influenced the outcome of the case. Miranda v. Arizona established a

very specific set of guidelines for police officers that effect their line of work in a variety of

ways.

The Miranda Rights made police officers job a lot easier in the sense of covering their

backs when interviewing a suspect. If a person is not told their Miranda rights before questioning

the individuals answers to the police officers questions cannot be used in court because of the

fact that the suspect did not have an understanding of their rights. Even with the understanding of

what the Miranda Rights are, police officers sometimes still get this subject wrong. In a case in

Maricopa County, Arizona, detectives were investigating a criminal sexual misconduct between a

teenager and an adult when questioning the suspect the detectives never told the individual their

Miranda rights until he was arrested. After the individual was arrested, he exercised his right to

be silent and that he wanted an attorney. The judge ruled that because his Miranda rights were

never triggered the confession was not admissible. This case is an excellent example of what

officers face every day when weighing Miranda issues. If you get back to the basics of what the

1966 Miranda decision was all about, you'll remember that the defense claimed Ernesto Miranda

was not educated enough to understand his rights, so the officers should have made sure he

understood his rights before questioning. The recent Maricopa County case involves an accused

with many years of college and there was no question as to his understanding of his rights

(Clark). Having an understanding if the person can understand their Miranda Rights can be one

of the hardest things for the police officer to figure out. Miranda Rights have helped and have
 Frusti and Kerr 6

hurt police officers and detectives but in the end, we do believe that Miranda Rights have done

so much for the criminal justice world.

Since the creation of the Miranda Rights the Supreme Court has realized that it actually

hurts the police more than it helps them. Before Miranda, American law enforcement officers

cleared 63% of violent crimes; after Miranda, the average plummeted to 45%. (Rutledge) This

shows that after the Miranda Rights had been instilled the cleared rate of crimes took a

significant decline. The Supreme Court came up with exceptions to the Miranda Rights in which

we believe helps the police officers out immensely. The exceptions are as listed: Voluntary

Stationhouse Interrogations, Undercover Questioning, Strategic Deception at Arrest and Implied

Waivers and State Variations (Rutledge). In our opinion, there are two main exceptions that are

the most important to help make the police officers job easier. The first exception is Voluntary

Stationhouse Interrogations, this exception means that if someone, who is not a flight risk or

safety risk, volunteers to go back with the police officers back to the station and admit to the

crime that they have committed than the Miranda rights are not applicable. The Supreme Court

repeated this ruling in California v. Beheler, a case in which officers asked a murder suspect to

come to the station, told him that he was not under arrest, and made it clear he was free to leave

whenever he wanted. The court held that Miranda did not apply, and Beheler's confession was

admissible against him (Rutledge). The final exception is Undercover Questioning; this is one

of the most important exception to the Miranda Rights. The Undercover Questioning is where an

undercover police officer does not have to trigger Miranda Rights when questioning a specific

suspect. In Illinois v. Perkins, officers placed their arrestee into a cell where an undercover

officer, wearing jailhouse clothes, engaged him in conversation. The suspect's unwarned
 Frusti and Kerr 7

statements were admissible, because there is no compulsion to speak to a perceived fellow

prisoner. (Rutledge) The undercover questioning has to be where the arrestee is put into a cell

where there is an undercover officer in jailhouse clothes to speak to the individual. Every

exception is important to the Miranda Rights but these to change the interviewing process for all

criminal justice professionals.

In conclusion, the Miranda Rights have done good things and bad things for the criminal

justice world. Miranda vs. Arizona created a set of guidelines for all police officers, in the United

States, to inform suspects of their rights and that they do not have to speak to police officers if

they do not wish too. In todays society, bystanders who believe that the police officers do not

know how to do their jobs use the Miranda Rights incorrectly. What we mean by this is that

recently in the media Miranda Rights have been a hot topic for our society. The Supreme Court

has seen what the Miranda Rights has done in the criminal justice world. There are a lot of

negatives that come with the Miranda Rights so the Supreme Court has come up with exceptions

to these rights which makes it a little easier to get information out of the suspects. In the end, it

was necessary that the Miranda Rights were created and are being used today. It lets suspects

understand their rights which is part of the Protect and Serve in which every police officer

swears by to do.
 Frusti and Kerr 8

Works Cited
"Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona." United States Courts. Administrative Office of
the U.S. Court, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Holland, Jesse J. "Supreme Court Rules That Pre-Miranda Silence Can Be Used In Court." Huff
Post Politics. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Aug. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Howard Jr, Roscoe C., and Lisa A. Rich. "History of Miranda and Why It Remains Vital Today,
A." Val. UL Rev. 40 (2005): 685.
McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona." The Supreme Court. PBS, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Clark, Mark W. "50 Years After Miranda." - Article. Police Magazine, 21 May 2013. Web. 15
Nov. 2015.