§ 24.04 Miranda: The Case

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 24.04 Miranda: The Case

[A] The Facts

Miranda v. Arizona involved four cases consolidated for appeal. In view of the per se holding of Miranda, the facts relating to the police investigations received little attention by the Court. Although the prosecutions involved police practices in four jurisdictions, there were significant common facts: (1) each of the suspects had been taken into custody (in three, by arrest; in one, before formal arrest); (2) they were questioned in an interrogation room; (3) the questioning occurred in a police-dominated environment in which each suspect was alone with the questioners; and (4) the suspects were never informed of their privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

[B] The Holding

What follows is a summary of the key points made in Miranda. As noted earlier, however, the post-Miranda Supreme Court has reshaped the law. This is the starting point.

[1] What Rights Does a Suspect Have in the Interrogation Room?

[a] Self-incrimination

A suspect has a constitutional right not to be compelled to make incriminating statements in the police interrogation process. To enforce this right, Miranda holds that any statement, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, obtained as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect in a criminal trial unless the prosecutor proves that the police provided procedural safeguards effective to secure the suspect's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

"Custodial interrogation" — the triggering mechanism of Miranda — is defined as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." The Court said that "[t]his is what we meant in Escobedo [v. Illinois] when we spoke of an investigation which had focused on an accused."³⁴

[b] Right to Counsel

Miranda observed that "[t]he circumstances surrounding in-custody interrogation can operate very quickly to overbear the will of one merely made aware of his privilege" against compulsory self-incrimination. Therefore, the Court held that an in-custody suspect also has a right to consult counsel prior to questioning and to have counsel present during interrogation.³⁵

Under Miranda, the primary purpose of defense counsel during custodial interrogation is to assure that the suspect's ability to choose whether to speak or to remain silent is unfettered. The lawyer's presence in the interrogation room also serves "significant subsidiary functions": his presence reduces the likelihood that the police will act coercively; he can more effectively reconstruct events and, thus, better prepare a claim of coercion, if necessary, at a subsequent hearing or trial; and he can ensure that any statement given by his client is reported accurately at trial.³⁶

The right to counsel discussed in Miranda may be described as the Fifth Amendment, or Miranda, right to counsel. It should not be confused with the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, discussed in the next chapter, which differs in certain respects.

[2] Procedural Safeguards: The "Miranda Warnings"

According to Miranda, Congress and the states are free to develop procedural safeguards for protecting a suspect's Fifth Amendment rights during custodial interrogation. However, unless they are "fully as effective" as those described in the opinion, the following warnings must be provided by the police prior to custodial questioning.

First, the police must "in clear and unequivocal terms" indicate that the suspect has a right to remain silent.

Second, the consequence of foregoing the preceding right must be explained to the suspect. Specifically, the first statement "must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court."

Third, a suspect held for interrogation must "clearly" be informed that "he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation."

Fourth, because the financial ability of the suspect has no relation to the scope of the right to counsel or its...