TOPIC: Custodial Interrogation CASE: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 FACTS: On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken into custody at a Phoenix police station. While at the police station, he was identified by the complaining witness. The police then took him to an interrogation room in the detective bureau where he was questioned by two police officers. The officers admitted at trial that Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an attorney present. Two hours later, the officers emerged from the interrogation room with a written confession signed by Miranda. At the top of the statement was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity and with "full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." At the trial before a jury, the written confession was admitted into evidence over the objection of defense counsel, and the officers testified to the prior oral confession made by Miranda during the interrogation. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession and affirmed the convictions. In reaching its decision, the court emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not specifically request counsel. From that decision, the defendant appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. HOLDING AT TRIAL FOR: State of Arizona (and affirmed at the State Appeal level). ISSUE: When one is arrested and otherwise taken into custody, is it required that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, i.e. his right to remain silent against the giving of incriminating evidence and his right to have an attorney present, be explained to him before any questioning can occur. RULE OF LAW: Upon "custodial interrogation", one is entitled to the following measure as a rule of law: An admonishment that the arrestee has (1) the right to remain silent and that anything he says may be used against him in a court of law, and (2) the right to the presence of an attorney and if he cannot afford counsel, one will be appointed for him prior to questioning if he so desires. RATIONALE/APPLICATION OF RULE TO FACTS: The court in its analysis held that from the testimony of the officers and by the admission of respondent, it was clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. Absent the warnings to Miranda, his statements were inadmissible. The court further held that the typed in clause stating that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights did not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish his constitutional rights. The court further held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are not mutually exclusive rights. They may overlap in some instances, and protect the interests of an accused in an interrogation setting. With Miranda, the mere fact that his signed confession stated he had full knowledge of his legal rights was insufficient. For one to waive his constitutional rights, he must do so intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily. Without having been told he had a right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law and that he had a right to an attorney and if he could not afford one, the court would appoint a lawyer, Miranda could not knowingly and intelligently waive his rights. Therefore, Miranda was not afforded his Fifth Amendment right to compelled self-incrimination nor his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court's decision. HOLDING AT APPEAL FOR: Reversed. [Reprinted with permission. http://www.legal.com]