"Unless police inform a person about their constitutional rights prior to any questioning, then what they said cannot be used against them as evidence." — Supreme Court Justices
"Without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely." — Supreme Court Justices
"Always get a lawyer." — Ashley Flowers
This episode delves into the case of Ernesto Miranda, whose arrest and subsequent confession led to the landmark Supreme Court decision establishing the Miranda warning. The narrative traces the events following Miranda's arrest for kidnapping and rape, detailing the initial investigation, his identification by the victim, and his subsequent interrogation and confession. Crucially, it highlights that at the time of his arrest and interrogation, Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent or to have legal counsel, rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Miranda's legal defense team argued that his confessions were inadmissible due to the lack of notification regarding his constitutional rights. Despite initial setbacks in lower courts, his case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, reversed the lower court's ruling, establishing that any statements made by a suspect during custodial interrogation are inadmissible as evidence if the suspect has not been informed of their constitutional rights. This pivotal decision led to the creation of the now-familiar Miranda warning, designed to counterbalance the inherent pressures of police interrogations.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, Ernesto Miranda was retried. While his initial confession to the police was excluded, confessions made to his wife were admissible, and he was again found guilty. The episode concludes by reflecting on Miranda's complicated legacy, including his post-release exploitation of his fame and his eventual death. It also touches on the criticisms of the Miranda decision and reaffirms its importance as a protective measure for individuals' rights within the criminal justice system.