Forty one years ago today the Supreme Court of the United States issued the ruling in the landmark case of Miranda vs. Arizona. Today almost everyone can recite the warning that police must give before a suspect can be interrogated in order for any statements they may make to be used as evidence against them in court in their criminal prosecution by the government. This ruling put an important check on police powers and created jobs for many lawyers to work as government funded legal defense counsel to indigent people accused of crimes. It is also interesting to note that Thurgood Marshall argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in this case on behalf of the federal governement as Solicitor General of the U.S. Marshall later became a member of the highest U.S. court.
Here's the way the New York Times covered this story back in 1966. _____________
High Court Puts New Curb On Powers Of The Police To Interrogate Suspects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissenters Bitter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four View Limitation on Confessions as Aid to Criminals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four Dissenters Denounce Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Limiting of Confessions as Helping Free Criminals to Repeat Their Crimes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By FRED P. GRAHAM
Washington, June 13--The Supreme Court announced today sweeping limitations on the power of the police to question suspects in their custody. The justices split 5 to 4. In stinging dissents the minority denounced the decision as helping criminals go free to repeat their crimes.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Earl Warren, broke new constitutional ground by declaring that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination comes into play as soon as a person is within police custody.
Consequently, under the rulings, the prosecution cannot use in a trial any admissions or confessions made by the suspect while in custody unless it first proves that the police complied with a detailed list of safeguards to protect the right against self-incrimination.
The suspect, the Court said, must have been clearly warned that he may remain silent, that anything he says may he held against him and that he has a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.
Court-Appointed Counsel
If the suspect desires a lawyer but cannot afford one, he cannot be questioned unless a court-appointed lawyer is present.
If the suspect confesses after receiving the required warnings but without having counsel, the burden is on the prosecution to prove a knowing waiver of rights. And any prolonged interrogation will be taken to show a lack of waiver.
Moreover, the majority opinion said, if the suspect makes a knowing waiver but later asks to see a lawyer, all questioning must stop until he sees one. If the suspect is alone and starts to talk, but then indicates "in any manner" that he wants to remain silent, the police must stop questioning him.
Ruling Called 'Dangerous'
Although Chief Justice Warren stressed that the ruling did not outlaw confessions, the majority's opinion drew bitter dissenting remarks from Justices Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan, Potter Stewart and Byron R. White.
Justice Harlan, his face flushed and his voice occasionally faltering with emotion, denounced the decision as "dangerous experimentation" at a time of a "high crime rate that is a matter of growing concern."
He said it was a "new doctrine" without substantial precedent, reflecting a balance in favor of the accused.
Justice White said:
"In some unknown number of cases the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him.
"As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity."
Both the White and the Harlan dissents and one by Justice Clark insisted that the self- incrimination privilege did not apply at such an early stage in criminal proceedings. The self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment says no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Today's court action disposed of four appeals by prisoners who had confessed after having been interrogated by the police. They are Ernesto A. Miranda, convicted of rape in Phoenix, Ariz.; Michael Vignera, convicted of robbery in New York; Roy Allen Stewart, convicted of murder in Los Angeles, and Carl Calvin Westover, convicted of Federal charges of robbery in Sacramento, Calif.
All four convictions were reversed in today's action. The vote was 5 to 4 in each case except that of Stewart. Here it was 6 to 3; Justice Clark joined the majority because he thought the confession was involuntary, although he rejected in this case as in the others the Court's new limitations on interrogation.
Chief Justice Warren indicated that the Court would rule next Monday on a fifth confession case, which will determine whether the rules announced today will be applied retroactively to void old convictions.
In reading his 61-page opinion, Chief Justice Warren recounted a number of instances of the use of police brutality to obtain confessions. He also condemned psychological pressures.
At times the emotion in his voice equaled that of the dissenters and bespoke the deep division in the Court over the new doctrine.
Warren Lauds Police
The Chief Justice departed from his written opinion to praise the police "when their services are honorably performed." But he said that when they abandon fair methods "they can become as great a menace to society as any criminal we have."
He emphasized that the decision did not rule out questioning of witnesses at the scene of a crime or detention of a suspect while his story was being checked out. He made it clear that, despite some predictions by legal experts, the ruling did not require the presence of lawyers at police stations.
Spontaneous admissions of guilt also can be offered as evidence, he said, so long as they do not come after illegal interrogation without counsel.
By stating that police "custody" exists whenever a person is "deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way," the majority opinion makes clear that the police cannot avoid the new rules by conducting their interrogations during long rides in squad cars.
However, the opinion did seem to leave room for more litigation on the meaning of "custody" and on the circumstances under which a statement is truly spontaneous.
Also, it did not say specifically what proof would be necessary to show that a suspect had waived his rights--whether, ultimately, a suspect must have a lawyer to waive a lawyer.
The opinion also did not say whether other evidence than a confession, discovered as the fruits of an illegal interrogation, would be legally admissible.
Chief Justice Warren's reliance upon the Fifth Amendment surprised some legal authorities, because the famous parent case of today's decision, Escobedo v. Illinois, had ruled out a confession primarily because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to see his lawyer had been violated.
The decision today tends to merge the two rights, to assure a person a right to counsel whenever he is in a situation that might cause him to incriminate himself. The doctrine applies to all felony and misdemeanor trials, in both Federal and state courts.
In support of his view that these rules would not cripple law enforcement, Chief Justice Warren pointed out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has for years warned all suspects of their right to counsel and to remain silent. He said England, Scotland and India had not suffered from observing similar procedures.
Replying to the dissenters' complaint that the Court should have waited for the completion of pending confession studies by the American Bar Association, the American Law Institute and the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Mr. Warren said:
"The issues presented are of constitutional dimensions and must be determined by the courts."
John J. Flynn of Phoenix argued for Miranda; Assistant Attorney General Gary K. Nelson argued for Arizona. Victor M. Earle 3d of New York argued for Vignera; William I. Siegel, Assistant District Attorney of Kings County, argued for New York State.
William A. Norris of Los Angeles argued for Stewart; Gordon Ringer, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued for the state. F. Conger Fawcett of San Francisco argued for Westover; Thurgood Marshall, Solicitor General of the United States, argued for the Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment