What are Mirada rules?

It is the Miranda Rule

What is the Miranda Rule

The Miranda Rule includes two aspects:

1. The right to silence. This has become known to the world and has become a powerful tool to protect the basic human rights of criminal suspects. The right to silence, that is, the right not to answer questions, thereby reducing and avoiding torture to extract confessions, induce confessions, or false confessions due to fear of force. It is an important right possessed by criminal suspects under the principle of presumption of innocence commonly established in countries around the world. It affirms Criminal suspects shall not be forced to prove their guilt;

2. The right to obtain assistance from a lawyer. The suspect's personal strength is not enough to ensure the "normal" conduct of the interrogation. The participation of a lawyer plays a role in supervising and ensuring the legality and effectiveness of the interrogation process. It is indispensable in certain procedures. Therefore, for those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, the government should Provided free of charge to ensure equality before the law.

The Origin of the Miranda Rules - The Miranda Case

The Miranda case originated from a dungeon-like interrogation room in the basement of the Phoenix Police Department.

Ernesto Miranda, a high school dropout with a criminal record, was arrested for raping an underage girl a week ago. She later discovered his 1953 Packard and identified it as belonging to the man who gave her a ride to the desert and raped her. As he left her, he said, "Pray for me."

From dawn on March 2, 1963, police officers took turns questioning the young Mexican-American. Their purpose: confessions.

Mr. Debs is now a prominent defense attorney in Phoenix. He was one of the detectives staying at the police station that night. He didn't remember much about the suspect now. "He was a little Mexican kid. In those days, he was just that nobody." Debs, however, remembers his colleague using every tactic allowed, from both hard and soft tactics to "guy-face and sweet-face" tactics. Threatening to put various crimes on him.

“I remember several of us questioning him continuously,” he said. "We tried our best to get him to confess. After a while, he confessed. I think persistence is victory."

Miranda finally signed the written confession. In court, police admitted they did not inform him of his right to a lawyer or remind him that he could not answer police questions.

Years later, Miranda would say this about that day: "I didn't sleep at all the night before. I was tired. As soon as I got off work, they took me away for questioning. They mentioned first One crime, then another, and they decided I was the one."

Ernesto was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. David Miranda, his closest nephew, said no one cared about the case afterward. David was still a child. "We thought that was the end of the case."

Where we are

The fact is that the cross-examination of Ernesto was not uncharacteristic, especially for a "Mexican kid." . Like most American cities, Phoenix was still segregated in the early 1960s. Most Hispanics or Mexican Americans live on the south side of Thomas Road, with white neighborhoods on the north side.

David Miranda said, "My dad told me that Mexicans can't swim in certain places, dance in certain places, and date certain girls."

Ene Stowe was the fifth child of house painters who immigrated from Sonora, Mexico. He had been in and out of juvenile correctional institutions many times since he was a child. He dropped out of school in the ninth grade and later joined the army with his brothers. Before returning home to Mesa, Arizona, he was dishonorably discharged for leaving his job and served a year in federal prison for stealing a car.

Thus, when Ernesto was arrested for rape, he was no stranger to the criminal legal system. Yet the criminal justice system did not treat him the same as a middle-class white criminal suspect who lived on the north side of Thomas Road.

Looking back at the police department in the 1960s, Debs admitted to being biased in his handling of Ernesto. "We treat people north of the road cautiously and thoughtfully, but we treat people south of the road very harshly," he said. "In Lubei, when you put a guy into the car, you put your hand on his head to prevent him from touching his head, and gently move his legs in. But to the people in Lunan, you would say , 'Get in the fucking car! ' If his legs were still out, you would have slammed the door on his legs."

That's what the court said. Nestor's lawyer believed race would be an issue at the trial, telling a local newspaper, "The victim is a beautiful girl...the kind of girl a father would want his son to marry. But she's white...that's one of the inevitable things in Arizona."

But the central issue in Ernesto's appeal is police conduct, not race. The appeal is being handled by prominent Phoenix defense attorney John Flynn. At that time, neither of them expected that the appeal would have such an effect.

"He just wanted to get out of jail," Dave Miranda said of his uncle. "I don't think anyone thought at the time that he would change the situation like that. The one who didn't expect it was Ernie."

An unexpected milestone

The Miranda case will become a The culmination of the Supreme Court's achievements in protecting the rights of defendants under Chief Justice Earl Warren. Under his auspices, the court continued to reduce police powers in an effort to correct what it saw as injustices in the justice system.

Even before the 1966 Miranda ruling, many in law enforcement knew there would be change, and soon. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that all criminal defendants had the right to consultation; a year later, on the basis of this ruling, it confirmed that criminal suspects have the right to have a lawyer present during police interrogation.

"We realized at that point that our operation was under a microscope," recalls Debus, a former detective. "I remember when I was at the police college, someone told me that the law needed to change and that I needed to be cautious. But, needless to say, once I hit the streets, it was a different story."

Even so, few people It was not expected that Miranda rights would provide for such sweeping protections. The chief judge personally wrote the ruling opinion, which was passed by a vote of 5 to 4. In his submission, he challenged the then-current police manual. It instructs the interrogator to "control and overwhelm the subject of the interrogation" and "the interrogation must be decisive and firm and never show mercy", sometimes for several days; it even instructs "to use tactics to induce confessions."

Memories of Nephew

Ironically, after Ernesto's unpleasant experience with the Phoenix police, his nephew became a police detective. Dave recited Miranda warnings to suspects every day, but those words meant more to him. "It feels weird to say Miranda rights to others," said the 19-year police veteran, twitching his black and white moustache. "Every time I say it, I think of him."

One of the things Dave Miranda was thinking about happened while he was stationed in Germany with the U.S. Army. A soldier walked by with a copy of Star and Stripes, and the headline "Miranda Murder Leads to Landmark Ruling" caught his eye.

"I was distraught to watch," he said. "We have been waiting for him to be released from prison all those years. He was finally free, but he never had the chance to start a new life."

After the Supreme Court's ruling, the Ernesto case ended without a confession. re-examine the case. As a result, the verdict was still guilty. After being paroled in 1973, Ernesto went to live with his brother Rubin. But life was difficult for the shy, taciturn Ernesto. Dave Miranda said, "The guy who was looking for a job was an ex-convict, and his name was Miranda. There was no way that name wouldn't attract the attention of the employer, and it wouldn't attract the attention of anyone. It attracted a lot of people he didn't want to work with. Attention."

Famousness brought Ernesto only modest benefits.

He was said to be selling small cards with his signature and printed Miranda rights on the streets of Phoenix for a dollar or two. Not long after, he was sent back to prison for a parole violation.

After being released in 1976, he lived with his brother again. Due to a misunderstanding, he refused to attend the wedding ceremony at home and went to La Amapola Bar in the city center. A poker scene turned into a fist fight. When Ernesto washed the blood off his hands and reappeared, he was stabbed to death with a machete.

The murderer was never caught. An accomplice was caught that night. Before taking him to the police station, a Phoenix police officer took out a card measuring 6.35 centimeters wide and 9 centimeters long and began to read: "You have the right to remain silent..."

Anyone who has watched an American movie in which American police officers arrest criminal suspects will have seen the police officers read out their Miranda rights:

"You have the right to remain silent. If you waive your right to remain silent, you Everything you say will be used against you in court. You have the right to a lawyer. If you wish to have one but cannot afford one, one can be found for you before the police interview begins."

The specific content of Miranda advice

Miranda advice refers to the provisions that US police should inform suspects of their rights before interrogating them. These rights are:

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court finally determined the Miranda rule, which reads as follows:

The Constitution requires me to tell you the following rights:

1. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say to any police officer may be used against you in court.

2. You have the right to retain a lawyer before being questioned by the police. The lawyer can accompany you throughout the entire process of questioning.

3. If you cannot afford a lawyer, as long as you agree, you will be provided with a lawyer free of charge before all inquiries.

4. If you are unwilling to answer questions, you can terminate the conversation at any time.

5. If you want to talk to your lawyer, you can stop answering questions at any time, and you can have the lawyer accompany you throughout the entire inquiry.

If the police do not provide Miranda advice, the evidence collected will not be admissible in court.

The procedural value of the Miranda Rules

The Miranda Rules mainly embody the procedural rules that protect the human rights of the defendant. The value of procedural justice lies in fair competition between the parties to the lawsuit. The establishment of Miranda Rules has changed the way American police handle cases. It has very important value in the program.

Value one, the Miranda rule makes Article 5 of the Amendment to the U.S. Constitution more concrete, "No person shall be compelled in a criminal case to testify against himself", thereby strengthening the prosecution's burden of proof. The "right against self-incrimination principle" (right against self-incrimination) is one of the United Nations judicial norms, and many countries have established this principle. In the 1930s, the U.S. Supreme Court made it applicable to the investigation stage by excluding evidence obtained through illegal methods such as torture. The establishment of the Miranda rule provided further guidance for the application of the "principle against self-incrimination" in investigation activities. protection. The scope of application of this rule is the facts that may result in a penalty or a heavier penalty, including facts that directly prove the crime and indirect proof of the crime, as well as facts that lead to the discovery of clues to the crime. Precisely because one party has no obligation to help the other party obtain weapons to use against itself, the other party to the lawsuit must rely on its own strength to obtain weapons against its opponent. This forces the prosecution to give up its reliance on the confessions of criminal suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings. ③Today, in the United States, this rule has been expanded and interpreted to mean that no government agency may force anyone to incriminate themselves. The evidentiary role of the defendant's confession in criminal trials has changed.

Value two, Miranda rules establish the definition of interrogation in criminal proceedings. The so-called "interrogation" (4) is generally understood as questioning, with the purpose of extracting incriminating evidence from the interrogator's mouth.

If the police ask the arrested person: "Did you kill this person?" This question is of course an interrogation. After the Miranda case is announced, if the arrested person chooses to remain silent, the testimony obtained from such an interview will certainly not be used as evidence. This requires the police to inform the arrested person of the "Miranda Warning" before questioning him. Otherwise, it will constitute an interrogation. Of course, this kind of interrogation is illegal, and the evidence and clues in the case obtained from the interrogation are not allowed. Enter judicial proceedings. Thus, the legality of interrogation has specific limits in police investigation activities.

Value three: Strengthening the defense of criminal suspects and defendants. ⑤French philosopher Pierre. Leroux once said, "Equality creates and constitutes justice." However, in criminal proceedings, the two parties are unequal, especially for the poor and those with low education or legal knowledge. This kind of resistance is low, and they do not know what their rights are,” Milan The application of the "Rule of Expression" enables them to first refrain from taking actions or saying words that are detrimental to themselves. He can remain silent and wait until a lawyer provides legal help before deciding what to do and what to say. In this way, the litigation power can be balanced and their litigation rights and interests can be protected procedurally. In short, the "Miranda Rule" is a concrete embodiment of the right to silence and a concentrated expression of a series of ideas on procedural justice. These ideas, in turn, are the foundation and source of the right to silence, accompanying specific rules. Because of this, the "Miranda Rules" are accepted by all walks of life.

Some Landmark Cases in the History of Miranda Rights

1971: The decision in Harris vs. New York is often referred to as The first strike against Miranda rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that statements made by a defendant who was not informed of his Miranda rights can be used to rebut his court testimony.

1975: In Oregon vs. Hass, the Supreme Court ruled that statements obtained from police interviews could be used to rebut a suspect's court testimony even after he requested the presence of an attorney. .

1999: A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, rules that prosecutors can use a confession made before he was read his rights.