Question

Four separate cases involving similar fact situations were consolidated as they presented the same constitutional question. In each case, police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorney's took a defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station to obtain a confession. In two of these cases the officials did not fully and effectively advise the defendants of their rights at the outset of the interrogation. In one case the officer stated that the defendant had the right “to talk to a lawyer for advice before any questioning. And that he had the right to have an attorney present during questioning.” In the fourth case the defendant remained silent during the questioning but did respond to three questions: “Do you believe in God?” Do you pray to God?” And, crucially “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Police interrogations produced oral admissions of guilt from each defendant, as well as signed statements from two of them, which were used to convict them at their trials. The defendants appeal, arguing that the officials should have warned them of their constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving them before the questionings began, that two were not properly advised and that one did not waive his right to remain silent. It was contended that to permit any statements obtained without such a warning violated their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Were the defendants' constitutional rights violated? Discuss and support your answer.

Answer 1

Yes, the defendant's constitutional rights were violated in this case. The rights violated are collectively called Miranda Rights.

The Miranda Rights came to prominence after the famous Supreme Court judgement in the year 1966 in the matter of Miranda Vs. the state of Arizona. These rights are the rights of the convicted to remain silent during interrogations. Under these constitutional rights, the police officer needs to

1. spell out all the rights available, including the right to remain silent,
2. inform him / her of the rights to refuse answering the questions posed
3. inform that whatever he / she says can be used against him / her in the court
4. inform that an attorney can be provided if he / she can't afford one, before the questioning
5. and that if you start answering without an attorney, you have the right to stop answering nay time
6. Ensure that the person has understood all the rights available to him before interrogation

Hence, the action provided in the question is indeed grossly insufficient.