519 MIRANDA vs.

ARIZONA (1966)

FACTS

Defendants were arrested by the police, who later obtained confessions from them while they were confined in
interrogation rooms. The trial court, where each of the defendants was charged, admitted the confessions
into evidence, and thereafter convicted each defendant. Defendants sought a review of the trial court's judgment.

ISSUE

Whether or not the confessions obtained from a defendant who was subjected to custodial police interrogation be
admitted as evidence at trial?

RULING

According to the Court, when an individual was taken into custody and subjected to questioning, the  U.S. Const.
amend. V privilege against self-incrimination was jeopardized. To protect the privilege, procedural safeguards were
required. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that
anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to
the presence of an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney, one was to be appointed for him prior to any
questioning if he so desired. After these warnings were given, a defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive
these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. The Court held that evidence obtained as a result of
interrogation was not to be used against a defendant at trial unless the prosecution demonstrated the warnings were
given, and knowingly and intelligently waived. Effective waiver required that the accused was offered counsel but
intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Presuming waiver from a silent record was impermissible.

In the context of custodial interrogation, once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the
individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the
interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his  Fifth Amendment privilege; any
statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or
otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to
overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. If the individual states that
he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have
an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the
individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicate that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his
decision to remain silent.