“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
The 1966 United States Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona is the most cited opinion in American history.
Ernesto Miranda, 22, was accused of raping an 18-year-old woman in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963. The victim was unable to identify him in a line-up, but the police led him believe she recognized him. After a 2-hour interrogation with no attorney present, Miranda confessed and eventually offered details of the crime that matched the victim’s account. He wrote a statement that included the words, “This confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.”
He was convicted on confession evidence alone. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. An appeal went to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that Miranda had not been explicitly informed of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court decision and declared that the confession could not be used as evidence in a trial.
Since the Miranda decision, persons taken into custody must be explicitly advised of their Constitutional rights or the information garnered during interrogation cannot be used at trial.
Note the words “taken into custody”! Police are not obligated to give Miranda warnings until they make an arrest. If you consent to talk to police before being taken into custody, you voluntarily waive your Miranda rights.
In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect’s words can be used against him if he fails to clearly tell police he wants to remain silent or have an attorney present. The burden for asserting Miranda rights is on the suspect.
The following factors must be present for Miranda to apply:
- Evidence must have been gathered.
- The evidence must be testimonial.
- The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.
- The evidence must have been the product of interrogation.
- The interrogation must have been conducted by agents of the state.
- The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.
Few ordinary citizens are equipped to handle the pressure, intimidation and confusion of an encounter with police. People unknowingly, unwittingly, and voluntarily waive one right after another. The result is that innocent people can be trapped into saying or doing things they will regret for the rest of their lives.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently ruled (in a 4-3 decision) that since a babysitter never explicitly stated that she wanted an attorney, she waived her rights. Although her attorney and husband had arrived and were just outside the door, they were not allowed in and she was not informed that they were there. A detective told her a false story that her daughter saw her shake the baby. He did not mention that the daughter said it was during the administration of CPR. The Justices ruled, “Police deception doesn’t automatically mean resulting statements are inadmissible.”
In our database, we tracked cases where Miranda was mentioned. Only 1% of suspects in Shaken Baby Syndrome cases availed themselves of the right to remain silent or have an attorney present during questioning! Asked afterward, many said they had nothing to hide. There was no reason they could think of not to talk to police!
Many people who’ve been accused of shaking babies have never before been in trouble with the law. They respect the police. They know they did nothing wrong, so they talk to police, only to have their words twisted or misinterpreted and used against them in a court of law.
It’s ironic that career criminals are more likely to know and exercise their Miranda rights than innocent people. If police think you did something illegal, the reason they want to talk to you is to garner an admission or confession. You have nothing to gain by talking to them.
The United States Supreme Court in 1969, Frazier v. Cupp 394 U.S.731 granted police the right to lie to suspects during interrogation. Few honest, law-abiding people are aware of that. In Shaken Baby Syndrome cases, police often say you must tell them “the truth” so doctors can effectively treat the baby. That is a lie. Doctors will treat the baby regardless of what you say or do not say.
The best advice is NEVER talk to police without an attorney present if there’s a slight possiblity they think you did something wrong, especially if you did not do anything wrong! Be polite, but assert your rights calmly, clearly and repeatedly so there can be no question. Say, “I want an attorney to be present before I talk with you.”