The Spectacularly Stunning Supreme Court Case of Miranda v. Arizona!

The events of the case are as follows: in Phoenix, Arizona, on March 13, 1963, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault. The police, however, did not inform him of his right to request a lawyer, getting Miranda to sign a confession and a disclaimer that he had “full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me...” After being denied counsel again, with a 20-year sentence for rape looming over his head, Miranda appealed his way into the Supreme Court, which eventually overturned his conviction, and established one of the most well-known sets of rights in the United States: Miranda Rights.

There were several constitutional issues that ran underneath Miranda v. Arizona. For example, the Supreme Court had to decide whether confessions obtained in violation of the fifth and sixth amendments were permissible in court or not, and when a lawyer should be provided for a person who cannot afford one. The constitutional argument that Miranda made was that the Arizona police had violated his right to remain silent (present in the fifth amendment) and his right to legal counsel (present in the sixth amendment). The plaintiff also fell back on past court cases that the Supreme Court had decided, stating that Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, had banned evidence retrieved from an "illegally obtained confession" from the courtroom, and that Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, had given "all felony defendants...the right to an attorney." Miranda argued that the precedents set in these old court cases, along with his denied constitutional rights, gave him the right to a brand-new trial.

Ernesto's initial trial was over and done with in the blink of an eye. The only evidence held against Miranda were witnesses Patty McGee (the rape victim), her sister, the two police officers who had gotten Miranda to confess, and then Miranda's signed confession. Although Officer Cooley admitted that he had not notified Miranda of his right to cousel, the jury chose to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to a twenty-year and a thirty-year period in jail. Miranda soon appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, yet it took a period of 18 months for the Court to finally take a look at Ernesto's case. However, they believed that a precedent established by a previously decided Supreme Court case, Escobedo v. Illinois, did not apply to Miranda's case. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld Miranda's conviction. Two years into his sentence, Ernesto Miranda filed for a writ of certiorari, requesting that the Supreme Court review his case. Luckily for Miranda, the American Civil Liberties Union had been looking for clarification in the Escobedo v. Illinois case, and decided that Miranda's case would offer sufficient closure on the subject of violation of 5th and 6th amendment rights. The ACLU recruited two lawyers, John J. Flynn and John P. Frank, two argue the case in front of the Court, and in 1965, the Supreme Court decided that something had to be done to clear up the Escabedo mess. The Supreme Court finally decided to hear the case of Miranda v. Arizona in November of 1965, seeking a ruling that would clarify Escabedo's precedent to struggling lower courts.

Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when Miranda v. Arizona hit the courtroom, stood as something of a wild card in terms of ideology. Appointed by President Eisenhower, with a belief that he would champion Republican through various rulings, Warren turned out to something of a wild card, instead widely promoting the unconstitutionality of segregation through court cases such as Brown v. Board of Ed. Other members of the Court during this case were much more rigidly set in their respective ideologies than Warren. Democratic-minded justices included Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Abe Fortas. Republican-swayed justices included John M. Harlan II, Potter Stewart, and Byron White. Indeed, the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court were ruling in favor of at the time, such as Brown's in Brown v. Board of Ed., showed that the Court was leaning in a liberal direction, inciting more progressive decisions.

The Supreme Court did decide the case in favor of Miranda in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion, stating that, due to the manner in which the Phoenix police had interrogated Miranda, and the fact that they had not warned him of the rights that he possessed under the 5th and 6th amendments, then Miranda's signed statement should not count against him in a court of law. Miranda's charge was lifted, and Warren went on to clarify how a suspect could enforce his/her 5th or 6th amendment rights. For example, if a suspect wished to enforce his/her right to remain silent, Warren declared, then the interrogation must stop immediately.

There was one partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion: that of Tom C. Clark. He believed that the Supreme Court should have weighed its decision much more carefully, making sure that Miranda had been totally in the dark as to what his rights were. For they knew, Clark argued, Miranda could have received a slight warning, yet chose to simply disregard it.

The minority opinion, voiced in two dissents written by John M. Harlan II, and Byron White, revolved around the fact that such a decision was interpreting the Constitution just a few steps too far, stating that such a responsibility for the police, or any law-enforcement agent, to inform a man or woman of his/her rights was not to be found anywhere in the words of the 5th amendment.

The judicial implementation of this landmark decision manifested itself in the form of the "Miranda Warning." For example, when officers now arrested a suspect, that had to be sure to inform the person of his/her 5th and 6th amendment rights, lest they be taken to court yet again. These "Miranda Warnings" include "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 talk to a lawyer and have him present with you during questioning," and "If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish."

I definitely agree with this decision. Without checks on the law enforcement, in terms of how they may be allowed to interrogate suspects, police may be able to bully certain people into confessing to a crime that they did not commit. For example, in the case of the "West Memphis Three," one of three boys suspected of murdering children, named Jesse Misskelley, was coerced by West Memphis police into confessing to the crime. Because of his lower-than-average mental acuity, the police were able to sit him down in a grueling, hours-long interrogation the most certainly did not touch on his right to remain silent. Unfortunately, Miranda Law should have prevented this atrocity from occurring, and yet it did not. Police must hold themselves responsible for following the law, and not following their guts.