The Rights Of The Supreme Court

1290 Words6 Pages
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law...” These famous words, so often heard in movies and television shows as a character is arrested, are well known to Americans. But why are law enforcement officials mandated to repeat this to individuals they arrest? Where did it come from? In Miranda V. Arizona, a case taken all the way to the Supreme Court in 1966, it was decided that constitutional rights must be made clear to the defendant at time of arrest in order for any information received during interrogations to be used as evidence in court and to ensure the rights of the accused are protected throughout the entire process throughout the legal system (Gaines & Miller, 2014).…show more content…
When he went to trial, the prosecution heavily relied on his confession, and he was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison (McBride, 2006). Miranda appealed this decision and the case went to the United States Supreme Court, in which it was decided that Miranda’s confession was inadmissible as he was not advised of his right to an attorney. Eventually, Miranda was retried by the Supreme Court of Arizona without his confession being introduced as evidence against him, and he was convicted, yet again, of twenty to thirty years (United States Courts, 2014). Three other cases were reviewed by the Supreme Court along with Miranda V. Arizona and combined to make up the legal reasoning behind what we now know as the Miranda warning. In Vignera V. New York, the accused was questioned by police, verbally confessed to a crime, and signed a written confession, all without being advised of his right to counsel (Miranda V. Arizona). In Westover V. United States, Westover was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, was not informed he had the right to an attorney, and was interrogated and made to sign several statements (Miranda V. Arizona). Similarly, in California V. Stewart, law enforcement detained and interrogated Stewart for five days without advising him of his Fifth Amendment rights (Miranda V. Arizona). Together, all four cases set the precedence for constitutional arrest procedure and under what circumstances
Open Document