Miranda v Arizona in El Warren.

Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 467( 1966))

1963 One day in early March, a white girl in Phoenix, Arizona was kidnapped and raped by a young man with a Spanish accent. After a period of investigation, the police found a man named Ernesto? Miranda. Miranda was born in a Mexican immigrant family and her father was a painter. He didn't like school since he was a child. He belongs to the "boy who often wanders in the street" and has been sent to juvenile reformatory many times. By the ninth grade, he finally dropped out of school. Later, he became a soldier and did odd jobs. His work record is not very good either. He was fired for absent without leave during office hours. In addition, he was sentenced for stealing a car and spent a year in a federal prison. Miranda was 23 years old when this case happened.

On March 3rd, 1963, the police arrested Miranda and took her to the police station. The victim identified Miranda. Then, the police took Miranda to the interrogation room, and two policemen interrogated her. The police did not inform Miranda of her rights under the law. During the interrogation time of more than two hours, the two policemen used all "legal" means to force Miranda to confess his crimes, including the interrogation strategy of "one is a good policeman and the other is a bad policeman", and finally got a written confession signed by Miranda. At the top of the confession, there is a pre-printed sentence: "This confession was made voluntarily, without threat or promise of exemption. I fully understand my legal rights and understand that any statement I make may be used against me. " The jury accepted the confession and reached a guilty verdict. Miranda refused to accept the verdict and appealed to the Supreme Court with the help of a lawyer appointed by the government. At the beginning of 1966, the Supreme Court decided to accept the case, and on June 13, the verdict was overturned by a vote of 5: 4. The ruling said: "(a) ... In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures for safeguarding the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution must be observed: before any trial, the detainees must be clearly informed: 65433. 2. You have the right to get the help of a lawyer and have the right to ask a lawyer to be present during the interrogation; If you can't afford an attorney, we will appoint one for you. (e) Before or during the trial, the suspect expresses his wish to remain silent and the trial must be stopped; If he says he wants to see a lawyer, the trial must be stopped until the lawyer arrives. (f) If the trial was conducted in the absence of a lawyer and a confession was obtained, it is the responsibility of the government to prove that the defendant knowingly, rationally and wisely gave up the right to a lawyer. (g) During the interrogation in custody, the suspect answered some questions, but did not give up his privileges. He can also advocate silence in the subsequent interrogation. (h) Giving warnings and waiving rights are prerequisites for the admission of the guilty confession or innocent defense made by the defendant. ……"。 The world-famous Miranda rule was born.

This judgment was drafted by Chief Justice earl warren of the Federal Supreme Court, and the Miranda case is also one of the most controversial judgments made by Justice Warren. There are also many people who blame Miranda rule on this character in the style of judicial reform. However, in fact, the Miranda rule has its historical inevitability. "/kloc-In the middle of the 8th century, the common law paid special attention to the defendant's right to decide whether to plead guilty or not. Blackstone warned that according to the law of treason, "a confession made in a hurry without protection" ... should not be accepted as evidence. "However, by 1836, the policy tends to adopt confessions. "The practice at that time was that no matter what the situation was, as long as the defendant made a statement against him", once it was effectively proved, it was enough to convict without any reinforcement. "By the beginning of the 20th century, due to the rising crime rate and cultural confusion, the judiciary was more inclined to crack down on crime. At that time, the phenomenon of extorting confessions by torture was serious, but the court allowed it. In the case of 1936 Brown v. Mississippi (297 U.S. 278, 56 S.CT. 46 1 80 L.ED. 682), the testimony obtained by hanging the suspect was used as the basis for conviction by the Mississippi court. By the 1940s, some changes had taken place in the situation of police compulsory interrogation. During interrogation, the police gradually turned from extorting confessions by torture and threats to exerting pressure on the criminal suspect in a more potential way, so that the criminal suspect could make a confession against himself in a forced atmosphere. Therefore, the Federal Supreme Court indicated that it is necessary to establish a clearer test standard for the arbitrariness of confession. In addition, the racial problem in the United States was very serious in the 1960s. "The Supreme Court must know that most appeals on plea cases involve black defendants." "The Federal Supreme Court seems to regard trial restriction as part of its racial equality agenda." Taking potential coercion as a more insightful test standard should be more beneficial to poor and poorly educated defendants, thus helping to alleviate social and economic inequalities affecting the criminal justice system. " In the 1950s and early 1960s, the Federal Supreme Court made a series of rulings in favor of defendants, which made many judges feel more sympathy for those accused who were unfairly questioned. At the same time, "the American criminal justice system always produces results that the Federal Supreme Court considers problematic. "Therefore, the Supreme Court thinks that they should make some rules to regulate criminal justice activities. 1964, in the decision of Escobedo v. Illinois 378US478 (1964), the federal supreme court clearly defined the absolute right to remain silent for the first time, and emphasized whether to give and give the notice correctly, and whether the defendant had given up the right to remain silent.

However, practice shows that the case is "vague, confusing and restrictive", that is, the case has not played much role. Therefore, "if the Federal Supreme Court really wants to provide protection for typical defendants, it needs to be more flexible and make greater moves. Of course, this prescription is Miranda v Arizona. " Therefore, the Miranda rule, which was born in 1966, cannot be said to be the result of historical development and social reality at that time.