Please Don't Use This Against Me

I apologize for this one. For the Fifth Amendment, there is no decision. There is only one case to choose: Miranda v. Arizona. It’s the landmark case, and many people don’t know enough about the origination of the eponymous Miranda Rights, so this could be more educational than cliché.

For background, I present the Fifth Amendment, in all its resplendent glory:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

With regards to the Fifth Amendment, there a few chief clauses to understand (bolded). The first pertains to double jeopardy, the notion that people can’t be retried for the same offense. The second clause is what makes this amendment infamous – protection against self-incrimination. No one can be forced to testify against them self and can therefore “plead the Fifth [Amendment]”. Finally, due process of law guarantees that the government carries out all criminal proceedings in a fair and legal way.

Now, with the legalese out of the way, let’s discuss Miranda. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona in 1963 on circumstantial evidence that implicated him as the rapist and kidnapper of an 18 year old woman. Having been detained and interrogated for over 2 hours, Miranda confessed to the crime. He put this confession to writing under a statement swearing the voluntary nature of the confession.

Image Courtesy of the National Constitution Center

Both a trial court and the Arizona Supreme Court accepted the confession as evidence and sentenced Miranda to 20-30 years in prison for his actions. However, Alvin Moore, Miranda’s lawyer, objected that by not informing Miranda orally of his right to remain silent and that his responses during the interrogation could be used against him, the evidence was not legally obtained and violated the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Chief Justice Warren wrote in the opinion of the Court that “the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court” and that the detainee has the right to counsel. Warren made it expressly clear that if a detainee chooses to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel or against self-incrimination, the interrogation must immediately cease.

Miranda v. Arizona was a tight 5-4 case. For many of the dissenting justices, the decision was simply inane. Justice Byron White argued that “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”.

To a civilian, this case might seem equally ridiculous. Miranda confessed to the crime, but was acquitted on the grounds that the evidence was obtained illegally. However, many detainees could be unaware of the legal proceedings surrounding interrogation, and the Miranda Rights that followed from this case are an integral part of legal and police actions to this day.