Miranda vs arizona who is miranda

Despite this victory, he again was convicted and sentenced at his new trial and remained in Arizona prison until Supreme Court Library.

The library is located in downtown Tallahassee, Florida , directly across from the Capitol building. The mailing address is:.

Skip to Main Content. How to Read an Opinion. Amendments to Approved Rules. Unofficial Archive of Opinions. Websites Cited in Opinions. Analysis of Caseload. Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee. Oral Argument Broadcasts. Tentative Argument Schedule.

Observing Oral Arguments. Visitor Guide to Oral Arguments. Videos of Oral Argument Broadcasts. Clerk's Office. General Filing Information. About E-Filing Portal. Accessible Court Filings.

Court Forms. Administrative Orders. Rules of Appellate Procedure. How the Court Operates. Court Schedule. Representing Yourself? Jury Instructions. Bar Referee Manual. UPL Referee Manual. Florida Bar Exam. Certified Legal Intern Program. Senior Judge Information. Docket Search. Recent Filings. Case Disposition Orders. Review Granted Orders. Rules Cases: Approved Amendments. Rules Cases: Proposed Amendments. Tobacco Appeal Bonds. Timely Justice Act Certifications.

Caseload Statistics. Social Media. Advisory Opinions to the Governor. The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them, signed statements as well which were admitted at their trials.

They all thus share salient features -- incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.

An understanding of the nature and setting of this in-custody interrogation is essential to our decisions today. The difficulty in depicting what transpires at such interrogations stems from the fact that, in this country, they have largely taken place incommunicado. From extensive factual studies undertaken in the early 's, including the famous Wickersham Report to Congress by a Presidential Commission, it is clear that police violence and the "third degree" flourished at that time.

In a series of cases decided by this Court long after these studies, the police resorted to physical brutality -- beating, hanging, whipping -- and to sustained and protracted questioning incommunicado in order to extort confessions.

Justice, pt. The use of physical brutality and violence is not, unfortunately, relegated to the past or to any part of the country. Only recently in Kings County, New York, the police brutally beat, kicked and placed lighted cigarette butts on the back of a potential witness under interrogation for the purpose of securing a statement incriminating a third party.

People v. Portelli , 15 N. The examples given above are undoubtedly the exception now, but they are sufficiently widespread to be the object of concern. Unless a proper limitation upon custodial interrogation is achieved -- such as these decisions will advance -- there can be no assurance that practices of this nature will be eradicated in the foreseeable future. The conclusion of the Wickersham Commission Report, made over 30 years ago, is still pertinent:.

It is not sufficient to do justice by obtaining a proper result by irregular or improper means. As the New York prosecutor quoted in the report said, 'It is a short-cut, and makes the police lazy and unenterprising. Again we stress that the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically, rather than physically, oriented. As we have stated before,. Florida , U. Blackburn v. Alabama , U. Interrogation still takes place in privacy.

Privacy results in secrecy, and this, in turn, results in a gap in our knowledge as to what, in fact, goes on in the interrogation rooms. A valuable source of information about present police practices, however, may be found in various police manuals and texts which document procedures employed with success in the past, and which recommend various other effective tactics.

By considering these texts and other data, it is possible to describe procedures observed and noted around the country. The subject should be deprived of every psychological advantage. In his own home, he may be confident, indignant, or recalcitrant. He is more keenly aware of his rights and. Moreover his family and other friends are nearby, their presence lending moral support.

In his own office, the investigator possesses all the advantages. The atmosphere suggests the invincibility of the forces of the law. To highlight the isolation and unfamiliar surroundings, the manuals instruct the police to display an air of confidence in the suspect's guilt and, from outward appearance, to maintain only an interest in confirming certain details.

The guilt of the subject is to be posited as a fact. The interrogator should direct his comments toward the reasons why the subject committed the act, rather than court failure by asking the subject whether he did it. Like other men, perhaps the subject has had a bad family life, had an unhappy childhood, had too much to drink, had an unrequited desire for women.

The officers are instructed to minimize the moral seriousness of the offense, [ Footnote 12 ] to cast blame on the victim or on society.

Explanations to the contrary are dismissed and discouraged. The texts thus stress that the major qualities an interrogator should possess are patience and perseverance.

The investigator will, however, encounter many situations where the sheer weight of his personality will be the deciding factor. Where emotional appeals and tricks are employed to no avail, he must rely on an oppressive atmosphere of dogged persistence. He must interrogate steadily and without relent, leaving the subject no prospect of surcease. He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth. He should interrogate for a spell of several hours, pausing only for the subject's necessities in acknowledgment of the need to avoid a charge of duress that can be technically substantiated.

In a serious case, the interrogation may continue for days, with the required intervals for food and sleep, but with no respite from the atmosphere of domination. It is possible in this way to induce the subject to talk without resorting to duress or coercion. The method should be used only when the guilt of the subject appears highly probable. The manuals suggest that the suspect be offered legal excuses for his actions in order to obtain an initial admission of guilt. Where there is a suspected revenge killing, for example, the interrogator may say:.

My guess is, however, that you expected something from him, and that's why you carried a gun -- for your own protection. You knew him for what he was, no good. Then when you met him, he probably started using foul, abusive language and he gave some indication. That's about it, isn't it, Joe? Having then obtained the admission of shooting, the interrogator is advised to refer to circumstantial evidence which negates the self-defense explanation.

This should enable him to secure the entire story. One text notes that,. When the techniques described above prove unavailing, the texts recommend they be alternated with a show of some hostility. One ploy often used has been termed the "friendly-unfriendly," or the "Mutt and Jeff" act:. In this technique, two agents are employed. Mutt, the relentless investigator, who knows the subject is guilty and is not going to waste any time.

He's sent a dozen men away for this crime, and he's going to send the subject away for the full term. Jeff, on the other hand, is obviously a kindhearted man. He has a family himself.

He has a brother who was involved in a little scrape like this. He disapproves of Mutt and his tactics, and will arrange to get him off the case if the subject will cooperate.

He can't hold Mutt off for very long. The subject would be wise to make a quick decision. The technique is applied by having both investigators present while Mutt acts out his role.

Jeff may stand by quietly and demur at some of Mutt's tactics. When Jeff makes his plea for cooperation, Mutt is not present in the room. The interrogators sometimes are instructed to induce a confession out of trickery. The technique here is quite effective in crimes which require identification or which run in series. In the identification situation, the interrogator may take a break in his questioning to place the subject among a group of men in a line-up.

Then the questioning resumes "as though there were now no doubt about the guilt of the subject. It is expected that the subject will become desperate and confess to the offense under investigation in order to escape from the false accusations. The manuals also contain instructions for police on how to handle the individual who refuses to discuss the matter entirely, or who asks for an attorney or relatives.

The examiner is to concede him the right to remain silent. First of all, he is disappointed in his expectation of an unfavorable reaction on the part of the interrogator.

Secondly, a concession of this right to remain silent impresses. After this psychological conditioning, however, the officer is told to point out the incriminating significance of the suspect's refusal to talk:.

That's your privilege, and I'm the last person in the world who'll try to take it away from you. If that's the way you want to leave this, O. But let me ask you this. Suppose you were in my shoes, and I were in yours, and you called me in to ask me about this, and I told you, 'I don't want to answer any of your questions.

That's exactly what I'll have to think about you, and so will everybody else. So let's sit here and talk this whole thing over. Few will persist in their initial refusal to talk, it is said, if this monologue is employed correctly.

In the event that the subject wishes to speak to a relative or an attorney, the following advice is tendered:. If the request is for an attorney, the interrogator may suggest that the subject save himself or his family the expense of any such professional service, particularly if he is innocent of the offense under investigation.

The interrogator may also add, 'Joe, I'm only looking for the truth, and if you're telling the truth, that's it. You can handle this by yourself. From these representative samples of interrogation techniques, the setting prescribed by the manuals and observed in practice becomes clear. In essence, it is this: to be alone with the subject is essential to prevent distraction and to deprive him of any outside support. The aura of confidence in his guilt undermines his will to resist.

He merely confirms the preconceived story the police seek to have him describe. Patience and persistence, at times relentless questioning, are employed. To obtain a confession, the interrogator must "patiently maneuver himself or his quarry into a position from which the desired objective may be attained. It is important to keep the subject off balance, for example, by trading on his insecurity about himself or his surroundings.

The police then persuade, trick, or cajole him out of exercising his constitutional rights. Even without employing brutality, the "third degree" or the specific stratagems described above, the very fact of custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty, and trades on the weakness of individuals.

This fact may be illustrated simply by referring to three confession cases decided by this Court in the Term immediately preceding our Escobedo decision.

In Townsend v. Sain , U. The defendant in Lynumn v. This Court, as in those cases, reversed the conviction of a defendant in Haynes v. Washington , U. In the incommunicado police-dominated atmosphere, they succumbed. In the cases before us today, given this background, we concern ourselves primarily with this interrogation atmosphere and the evils it can bring. In No. Arizona , the police arrested the defendant and took him to a special interrogation room, where they secured a confession.

New York , the defendant made oral admissions to the police after interrogation in the afternoon, and then signed an inculpatory statement upon being questioned by an assistant district attorney later the same evening.

United States , the defendant was handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by. After some two hours of questioning, the federal officers had obtained signed statements from the defendant. Lastly, in No. Stewart , the local police held the defendant five days in the station and interrogated him on nine separate occasions before they secured his inculpatory statement. In these cases, we might not find the defendants' statements to have been involuntary in traditional terms.

Our concern for adequate safeguards to protect precious Fifth Amendment rights is, of course, not lessened in the slightest. In each of the cases, the defendant was thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and run through menacing police interrogation procedures.

The potentiality for compulsion is forcefully apparent, for example, in Miranda , where the indigent Mexican defendant was a seriously disturbed individual with pronounced sexual fantasies, and in Stewart , in which the defendant was an indigent Los Angeles Negro who had dropped out of school in the sixth grade.

To be sure, the records do not evince overt physical coercion or patent psychological ploys. The fact remains that in none of these cases did the officers undertake to afford appropriate safeguards at the outset of the interrogation to insure that the statements were truly the product of free choice.

It is obvious that such an interrogation environment is created for no purpose other than to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner. This atmosphere carries its own badge of intimidation. To be sure, this is not physical intimidation, but it is equally destructive of human dignity. Nation's most cherished principles -- that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.

Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. From the foregoing, we can readily perceive an intimate connection between the privilege against self-incrimination and police custodial questioning.

It is fitting to turn to history and precedent underlying the Self-Incrimination Clause to determine its applicability in this situation. We sometimes forget how long it has taken to establish the privilege against self-incrimination, the sources from which it came, and the fervor with which it was defended.

Its roots go back into ancient times. The oath would have bound him to answer to all questions posed to him on any subject. He resisted the oath and declaimed the proceedings, stating:. On account of the Lilburn Trial, Parliament abolished the inquisitorial Court of Star Chamber and went further in giving him generous reparation.

The lofty principles to which Lilburn had appealed during his trial gained popular acceptance in England. They knew that. Boyd v. The privilege was elevated to constitutional status, and has always been "as broad as the mischief. Hitchcock , U. We cannot depart from this noble heritage. Thus, we may view the historical development of the privilege as one which groped for the proper scope of governmental power over the citizen.

As a "noble principle often transcends its origins," the privilege has come rightfully to be recognized in part as an individual's substantive right, a "right to a private enclave where he may lead a private life.

That right is the hallmark of our democracy. Grunewald , F. We have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination -- the essential mainstay of our adversary system -- is founded on a complex of values, Murphy v.

Waterfront Comm'n , U. Shott , U. All these policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government -- state or federal -- must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. To maintain a "fair state-individual balance," to require the government "to shoulder the entire load," 8 Wigmore, Evidence McNaughton rev.

Chambers v. In sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right "to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will. Hogan , U. The question in these cases is whether the privilege is fully applicable during a period of custodial interrogation.

In this Court, the privilege has consistently been accorded a liberal construction. Albertson v. SACB , U. McCarthy , U. Hitchock , U. We are satisfied that all the principles embodied in the privilege apply to informal compulsion exerted by law enforcement officers during in-custody questioning. An individual swept from familiar surroundings into police custody, surrounded by antagonistic forces, and subjected to the techniques of persuasion described above cannot be otherwise than under compulsion to speak.

As a practical matter, the compulsion to speak in the isolated setting of the police station may well be greater than in courts or other official investigations, where there are often impartial observers to guard against intimidation or trickery. This question, in fact, could have been taken as settled in federal courts almost 70 years ago, when, in Bram v.

In Bram , the Court reviewed the British and American history and case law and set down the Fifth Amendment standard for compulsion which we implement today:. The rule is not that, in order to render a statement admissible, the proof must be adequate to establish that the particular communications contained in a statement were voluntarily made, but it must be sufficient to establish that the making of the statement was voluntary; that is to say, that from the causes, which the law treats as legally sufficient to engender in the mind of the accused hope or fear in respect to the crime charged, the accused was not involuntarily impelled to make a statement, when, but for the improper influences, he would have remained silent.

The Court has adhered to this reasoning. In , Mr. Justice Brandeis wrote for a unanimous Court in reversing a conviction resting on a compelled confession, Wan v. He stated:. A confession is voluntary in law if, and only if, it was, in fact, voluntarily made.

A confession may have been given voluntarily, although it was made to police officers, while in custody, and in answer to an examination conducted by them. But a confession obtained by compulsion must be excluded whatever may have been the character of the compulsion, and whether the compulsion was applied in a judicial proceeding or otherwise.

Bram v. In addition to the expansive historical development of the privilege and the sound policies which have nurtured. In fact, the Government concedes this point as well established in No.

United States , stating:. These supervisory rules, requiring production of an arrested person before a commissioner "without unnecessary delay" and excluding evidence obtained in default of that statutory obligation, were nonetheless responsive to the same considerations of Fifth Amendment policy that unavoidably face us now as to the States.

In McNabb , U. Our decision in Malloy v. In Malloy , we squarely held the. There, as in Murphy v. California , U. Aside from the holding itself, the reasoning in Malloy made clear what had already become apparent -- that the substantive and procedural safeguards surrounding admissibility of confessions in state cases had become exceedingly exacting, reflecting all the policies embedded in the privilege, U. Our holding there stressed the fact that the police had not advised the defendant of his constitutional privilege to remain silent at the outset of the interrogation, and we drew attention to that fact at several points in the decision, U.

This was no isolated factor, but an essential ingredient in our decision. The entire thrust of police interrogation there, as in all the cases today, was to put the defendant in such an emotional state as to impair his capacity for rational judgment. The abdication of the constitutional privilege -- the choice on his part to speak to the police -- was not made knowingly or competently because of the failure to apprise him of his rights; the compelling atmosphere of the in-custody interrogation, and not an independent decision on his part, caused the defendant to speak.

A different phase of the Escobedo decision was significant in its attention to the absence of counsel during the questioning. There, as in the cases today, we sought a protective device to dispel the compelling atmosphere of the interrogation. In Escobedo , however, the police did not relieve the defendant of the anxieties which they had created in the interrogation rooms. Rather, they denied his request for the assistance of counsel, U. Haynes v. The denial of the defendant's request for his attorney thus undermined his ability to exercise the privilege -- to remain silent if he chose or to speak without any intimidation, blatant or subtle.

The presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would he the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion. It was in this manner that Escobedo explicated another facet of the pretrial privilege, noted in many of the Court's prior decisions: the protection of rights at trial.

The presence of an attorney, and the warnings delivered to the individual, enable the defendant under otherwise compelling circumstances to tell his story without fear, effectively, and in a way that eliminates the evils in the interrogation process. Without the protections flowing from adequate warnings and the rights of counsel,. Mapp v. Ohio , U. Pointer v. Texas , U. Today, then, 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.

We have concluded that, without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. In order to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights, and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored.

It is impossible for us to foresee the potential alternatives for protecting the privilege which might be devised by Congress or the States in the exercise of their creative rulemaking capacities. Therefore, we cannot say that the Constitution necessarily requires adherence to any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process as it is presently conducted.

Our decision in no way creates a constitutional straitjacket which will handicap sound efforts at reform, nor is it intended to have this effect. We encourage Congress and the States to continue their laudable search for increasingly effective ways of protecting the rights of the individual while promoting efficient enforcement of our criminal laws.

However, unless we are shown other procedures which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following safeguards must be observed. At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it -- the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise.

More important, such a warning is an absolute prerequisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere. It is not just the subnormal or woefully ignorant who succumb to an interrogator's imprecations, whether implied or expressly stated, that the interrogation will continue until a confession is obtained or that silence in the face of accusation is itself damning, and will bode ill when presented to a jury.

The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule, and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given.

Assessments of the knowledge the defendant possessed, based on information. More important, whatever the background of the person interrogated, a warning at the time of the interrogation is indispensable to overcome its pressures and to insure that the individual knows he is free to exercise the privilege at that point in time.

The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. It is only through an awareness of these consequences that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege.

Moreover, this warning may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of the adversary system -- that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest. The circumstances surrounding in-custody interrogation can operate very quickly to overbear the will of one merely made aware of his privilege by his interrogators. Therefore, the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today.

Our aim is to assure that the individual's right to choose between silence and speech remains unfettered throughout the interrogation process. A once-stated warning, delivered by those who will conduct the interrogation, cannot itself suffice to that end among those who most require knowledge of their rights.

A mere. Prosecutors themselves claim that the admonishment of the right to remain silent, without more, "will benefit only the recidivist and the professional. Even preliminary advice given to the accused by his own attorney can be swiftly overcome by the secret interrogation process. Escobedo v. Thus, the need for counsel to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege comprehends not merely a right to consult with counsel prior to questioning, but also to have counsel present during any questioning if the defendant so desires.

The presence of counsel at the interrogation may serve several significant subsidiary functions, as well. If the accused decides to talk to his interrogators, the assistance of counsel can mitigate the dangers of untrustworthiness. With a lawyer present, the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and, if coercion is nevertheless exercised, the lawyer can testify to it in court.

The presence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police, and that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial. See Crooker v. An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer.

While such request affirmatively secures his right to have one, his failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given. The accused who does not know his rights and therefore does not make a request. The defendant who does not ask for counsel is the very defendant who most needs counsel. We cannot penalize a defendant who, not understanding his constitutional rights, does not make the formal request, and, by such failure, demonstrates his helplessness.

To require the request would be to favor the defendant whose sophistication or status had fortuitously prompted him to make it. Dorado , 62 Cal. In Carnley v. Cochran , U. This proposition applies with equal force in the context of providing counsel to protect an accused's Fifth Amendment privilege in the face of interrogation. Accordingly, we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today.

As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right. If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before any interrogation occurs, the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis that the individual does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney.

The financial ability of the individual has no relationship to the scope of the rights involved here. The privilege against self-incrimination secured by the Constitution applies to all individuals. The need for counsel in order to protect the privilege exists for the indigent as well as the affluent. In fact, were we to limit these constitutional rights to those who can retain an attorney, our decisions today would be of little significance.

The cases before us, as well as the vast majority of confession cases with which we have dealt in the past, involve those unable to retain counsel. Wainwright , U. In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system, then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

Without this additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often be understood as meaning only that he can consult with a lawyer if he has one or has the funds to obtain one. The warning of a right to counsel would be hollow if not couched in terms that would convey to the indigent -- the person most often subjected to interrogation -- the knowledge that he too has a right to have counsel present.

Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner,. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.

If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent. This does not mean, as some have suggested, that each police station must have a "station house lawyer" present at all times to advise prisoners. It does mean, however, that, if police propose to interrogate a person, they must make known to him that he is entitled to a lawyer and that, if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided for him prior to any interrogation.

Arizona, in which the Court held that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police questioning. Reproduction courtesy of the Arizona Department of Corrections. Published in December All rights reserved. Check local listings. Reproduction courtesy of the Arizona Department of Corrections Miranda v. Arizona In Miranda v. Arizona , the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

The case began with the arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation.