The Importance Of Self-Incrimination

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

The first and greatest cause of false convictions is eyewitness identification according to the innocence project website almost 75% of cases later overturned were due to wrongful eyewitness identification. One of the main issues as we learned in class is that our minds do not keep a perfect recording of events in our memory they are often impacted by additional information given after the fact. Information about a suspect given afterwards such as suggesting their hair color, height, weight, or other attributes about them could influence our memories. Another issue found is using things like “show ups” for victims and witnesses; this is discussed on the innocence project page and was in class. Show ups tend to lead to wrongful identification because there is only one person instead of several potential suspects like a lineup. The Innocence project website discusses two variables that affect wrongful eyewitness identification Estimator and System variables. Estimator variables are things the justice system cannot influence such as the lighting, distance used when the victim or witness saw the suspect, the amount of stress or anxiety the victim is under, and research shows that it is hard for witnesses to identify someone of a different race than they are. The 2nd group of variables discussed are the system variables, these are things that the system can impact such as the type of lineup like line up or show up, how they administer lineups such as how similar the suspects

". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for a violent crime in Phoenix, Arizona and was taken to a police station for questioning. Officers put him into a room, where they questioned him for many hours. They came out with a confession Miranda had signed. The confession form included a paragraph saying the confession had been made voluntarily. The typed paragraph said Miranda had signed the confession “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” Miranda’s confession was used against him in court, and he was convicted.5th Amendment says that a person involved in a criminal case cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. In other words, only statements that are

Constitutional Amendments 4, 5, 6, part of 7, and 8 include our “Due Process” rights. Due process is defined as “a variety of procedural guarantees for those accused of crimes” The 4th amendment includes the right that protects people from unreasonable search and seizure and requires both probable cause and a warrant. It only allows the police to search for the person being arrested, things in view of that person, and things the person can reach that are in their immediate control. The 5th amendment protects against self-incrimination. People don’t have to answer any questions that might incriminate themselves and they can “plead the 5th” which means they are refusing to answer because it might incriminate them if they do. People have to be read their Miranda rights when they are being arrested and that lets them know they have the right to remain silent. The 6th amendment gives people the right to council and the right to trial by jury. So if you cannot afford an attorney you will receive a public defender to help with your case. You also have the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of your peers. The 7th amendment protects you from being tried by a jury and then having the court overturn their decision. The 8th amendment protects against cruel and

In conclusion, the Fifth Amendment privilege against Self-Incrimination only gives people the right to refuse to testify to the government if such testimony will incriminate them of a crime. Law enforcement cannot force the defendant to make any testimonial that can be used as evidence that he/she is guilty of the crime. It does not allow the right to refuse other physical evidence such as handwriting, to speak certain words, fingerprints, blood samples, and tissue samples or to refuse to stand in a police lineup even if these compelled documents contain incriminating evidence. Unless any of the documents is private meaning unknown to the government, the act of the defendant producing these documents can implicate a violation of the Fifth Amendment right.

Police interrogate suspects on a daily basis, but how can they tell if the confession is real? We have all heard, at one time or another of someone confessing to a crime they didn’t commit. Then your next thought is “I would never confess to something I didn’t do”. The only way you can be a 100% sure of that is if you have been through an interrogation before. This paper is going to define “confession” and tell how an innocent person will confesses to a crime they didn’t commit. This paper will also show the history of interrogations.

The defendants right against self-incrimination, is the essential mainstay of the United States adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations (Miranda v. Arizona 1966).

As we get to understand the Sixth Amendment and the impact it has on individuals who are subject to interrogation and their own confessions to a crime, we have to wonder why it is so important for us to understand our rights. There are a few ways that our verbal statements could be used against us once we are placed into an interrogation room and questioned, but why do we put so much emphasis on the important of these types of statements? Before we can explain how the sixth amendments can impact interrogations’ and confessions we first have to understand that before the Sixth Amendment can come in to play, the Fifth Amendment is the one that setup the Sixth Amendment to be addressed,

Alito, delivered the final vote of 5-4, majority vote at expense for the case of Salinas V. Texas on June 17, 2013. The SCOTUS decided that Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination are not reprehensible to defendants who chose to only remain mute during questioning, or a portion of questioning. SCOTUS states, “Long-standing judicial precedent has held that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim this protection” (Justice Alito, Oyez). The SCOTUS later goes on to say, “the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that a criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against themselves” (Justice Kennedy, Oyez). Therefore, If police officers read Salinas his rights at any point during conviction, questioning, or trial, there was no constitutional

Issues: “Does interrogation without informing the accused of their right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination violate his/her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights?”

To lie means to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive, according to the Webster’s dictionary. It also means to simply create a false or misleading statement on purpose. There are also many synonyms to the word “lie,” such as: prevaricate, equivocate, palter, and fib. The word lie happens to be the most blunt of this group. “Prevaricate” softens the bluntness of a lie by implying quibbling or confusing the issue. This form of lying is common in courtroomms and press conferences by lawyers and politicians. “Equivocate” implies using words having more than one sense in an attempt to say one thing but to mean another. This is an attempt to mislead one without feeling as if one has lied. “Palter”

Private investigators, retail security or loss prevention investigators are not required to issue Miranda warnings to suspected employees, customers or other individuals even when the suspected person has been subjected to a citizen arrest. However, if the arresting citizen uses physical or psychological abuse or threats of abuse, confessions or admissions may be inadmissible. Only voluntary confessions or admissions are useable as evidence. Trickery and deceit by law enforcement, however, may provide an admissible confession or admission. The courts look to the totality of the circumstances in determining admissibility. Confessions obtained after an illegal arrest may be subject to the Exclusionary Rule because of the unreasonable seizure

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”

The privilege against self-incrimination (“PSI”) s a very vague and wide legal concept under the common law initially. The common law rule was initially described as a rule that bounds no one to answer any question if it might expose him to any criminal charge or penalty in England and Wales.