In Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the defendant was arrested at his home for rape

In Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the defendant was arrested at his home for rape

In Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the defendant was arrested at his home for rape and taken to a police station, where he was identified by the complaining witness. The defendant was then interrogated and within two hours signed a written confession. At no time was the defendant informed of his right to consult with an attorney, his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation, or his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself. The defendant was questioned in unfamiliar surroundings, cut off from the outside world. The questions elicited oral statements and written statements that were used as evidence at trial. This case shared the features of incommunicado interrogation of a person in a police dominated atmosphere and resulted in self-incrimination statements without full warning of constitutional rights. The case of Miranda v. Arizona raises questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. We deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself. (Miranda v. Arizona) Certain phases of this problem were already dealt with in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963 and Escobedo v. Illinois in 196i4. In Escobedo v. Illinois, law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney. Rather, they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder. When the defendant denied the accu…


Comments are closed.