Understanding and Applying the Miranda Decision

Understanding and Applying the Miranda Decision

University Logo

Teacher: Bruno Reis

Adapted from: www.pbslearningmedia.org

Index

01. Discussion

04. Video

05. Applying Miranda to Dickerson v. United States

07. Discussion

02. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments

03. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Related Precedent Cases

06. Applying Miranda to Yarborough, Warden v. Alvarado (2004)

08. Thanks

01. Introduction to Miranda v. Arizona

• What do police officers must do with a suspect when they out him or her under arrest?
• What are MirandaWarnings? What do they say?

If you don't know, think about what the police officers say when they arrest someone.

These rights apply to a person who is being questioned by police and is in police custody. This is called a "custodial interrogation."

Would police have to read you a Miranda Warning if they were ...

.. asking you and several other students questions in the lunchroom?

... telling you to stop loitering on a corner?

... asking you which way someone ran?

... asking you for directions?

ANSWER

ANSWER

ANSWER

ANSWER

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution

The Fifth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment also includes many rights for people accused of crimes. Those most relevant to the Miranda case are:

The Fifth Amendment guarantees many rights for people accused of crimes. Those most relevant to the Miranda case are:

• "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

• An accused person may refuse to answer questions that may incriminate him or her.
• An accused person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Related Precedent Cases

Before the Court decided the Miranda case, it had made these decisions relating to the Fifth and Sixth amendments:

In Miranda, the Court essentially said:

• If police and prosecutors want to admit a confession against a defendant at trial, they must show that before the suspect was questioned in custody, he or she was warned of the rights to remain silent and to an attorney.
• Suspects who waive their rights to remain silent and/or to an attorney must do so "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
• If a defendant believes warnings were not given or that the confession was coerced, his or her attorneys can ask the judge to exclude from the trial the confession and any evidence obtained through the confession. This is called the exclusionary rule.

• In Brown v. Mississippi (1936), the Court had ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess.
• In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court held that persons accused of felonies have a fundamental Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one.
• In Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with an attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated.

The Miranda decision was not universally popular when it was made. In fact, even today, some people object to its requirements. Discuss:

• Who might not like the requirement of Miranda Warnings?
• What might their objections or concerns be?

One of the critics of Miranda was William Rehnquist, who believed that the Constitution protects individual rights very narrowly. After serving as an Associate Justice for 14 years, Rehnquist became Chief Justice of the Court in 1986. Now he had his chance to try to influence the Court to move in a new direction.

POSSIBLE ANSWERS

Pay close attention to why Justice Rehnquist opposed the Miranda decision. Can you summarize Rehnquist’s views?

The Dickerson Case video

Applying Miranda to Dickerson v. United States

Directions:

1. Review the facts of the case below and make sure everyone in your group understands them.
2. Classify the arguments made in this case using a separate handout, Classifying Arguments in the Dickerson Case.
3. Answer the questions of this page, which ask for your opinions about the case and how you think the Supreme Court decided it.

Facts of the Case:

In 1968, federal law enforcement officials followed a man suspected of driving the getaway car in a bank robbery in Virginia to his home in Takoma Park, Maryland. He refused to let them search his apartment, but while they were there, they noticed a large wad of money on his bed. Though he would not allow the search, he did agree to go with police to headquarters, where they questioned him and told him they had gotten a warrant to search his home. He confessed to having been the driver of a getaway car in a number of bank robberies. Later he claimed that he was not read his Miranda rights in a timely manner.

How the Case Traveled Through the Courts:

Classifying Arguments in the Dickerson Case

Directions:

The following is a list of arguments in the Dickerson v. United States court case. Read through each argument and decide which side of the argument it supports.You may find it helpful to refer to the other handout titled "Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Related Cases".

• Mark a "D" if the argument supports Dickerson's side -- that Miranda warnings should always be given to criminal suspects during custodial interrogation.
• Mark "US" if the argument supports overturning Miranda (and using the looser requirements of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968).
• Mark "Both" if the argument supports both sides.
• Mark "N" if the argument supports neither side.

1. _____ "Miranda was a 'constitutional decision' of the Supreme Court and such decisions cannot be overturned by a law passed by Congress."
2. _____ When the justices wrote the Miranda decision, some of them specifically said that the Constitution did not require the warnings. The Court also said that it did not want to create a "constitutional straitjacket" and referred to the warnings as "procedural safeguards." Furthermore, the Court specifically invited Congress and the states "to develop their own safeguards for [protecting] the privilege." That is what Congress did when it wrote the 1968 law that "loosened" the safeguards of Miranda.
3. _____ Congress has the power to overturn rules of evidence and procedure that are created by the judiciary when those rules are not specifically required in the Constitution. The rules required by the Miranda decision are not required by the Constitution.
4. _____ "Whether or not we would agree with Miranda's reasoning and its resulting rule, we were addressing the issue in the first instance, the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily against overturning it now. Even in constitutional cases, stare decisis carries such persuasive force that the Court has always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some special justification."
5. _____ "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."
6. _____ "Although Miranda invited legislative action to protect the constitutional right against coerced self-incrimination, it stated that any legislative alternative must be 'at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it.'"

Applying Miranda to Yarborough, Warden v. Alvarado (2004)

Directions:

1. Review the facts of the case below and make sure everyone in your group understands them.
2. Classify the arguments made in this case using a separate handout, Classifying Arguments in the Alvarado Case.
3. Answer the questions of this page, which ask for your opinions about the case and how you think the Supreme Court decided it.

Facts of the Case:

Michael Alvarado was a 17-year-old high school student with no prior arrest record. Police were investigating a murder and robbery. A detective had contacted Alvarado's mother, who agreed to bring him to the police station for questioning. When Alvarado arrived with his parents, the detective denied the parents' request to remain with their son during the interview. A single detective questioned Alvarado, who was alone, for about two hours. He was not placed under arrest and was told that he could leave after the questioning ended. His parents drove him home. At no time was Alvarado advised that he had the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney prior to questioning, or the right to leave the police station at any time. The detective did ask him twice if he needed to take a break.The trial judge denied Alvarado's request to exclude the evidence from the interview, which Alvarado claimed should be excluded because he did not receive his Miranda warnings. Alvarado, who did not pull the trigger of the gun that killed the victim, was convicted of second-degree murder and robbery in large part because of incriminating statements he made during a two-hour interview with a police detective.

How the Case Traveled Through the Courts:

Classifying Arguments in the Alvarado Case

Directions:

The following is a list of arguments in the Yarborough, Warden v. Alvarado court case. Read through each argument and decide which side of the argument it supports, if any. You may find it helpful to refer to the other handout titled "Miranda v. Arizona and Related Cases".

• Mark a "Y" if the argument supports Yarborough, Warden's side -- that Alvarado was not in "custody" when he was being questioned, so he was not entitled to be notified of his Miranda rights. (Police should not have to change their procedures when they interview juvenile suspects.)
• Mark an "A" if the argument supports Alvarado's side -- that a reasonable juvenile would not have felt free to leave and therefore was in custody and should have been advised of his Miranda rights.
• Mark "Both" if the argument supports both sides.
• Mark "N" if the argument supports neither side.

1. _____ The Supreme Court has already established the legal principle and precedent that juvenile suspects are, in general, more susceptible to police coercion than adults, so the police and courts should take a defendant's juvenile status into account when they evaluate procedures to ensure that confessions are made "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently."
2. _____ "This Court has often noted that one of the principle advantages of Miranda is that it provides police and courts with clear guidance about how custodial questioning must be conducted for statements to be admissible. This Court should not compromise the clarity and simplicity of Miranda now and start adding new rules depending on the age of the suspect in question. This would make it more difficult for police to determine when Miranda warnings are necessary."
3. _____ Miranda warnings are only required when a defendant is in custody. The question is how restrictive the circumstances of the interview are, rather than on the suspect's perception of them.
4. _____ "Relevant Supreme Court precedents lead us to conclude that Alvarado's youth and inexperience with the police are simply too important to be ignored."
5. _____ "The facts of this case make it clear that [Alvarado] was not in custody at the time of his interview. He was not handcuffed, arrested, or told he was not free to leave. In fact, he was told the interview would be brief and when the interview was over, he went home with his parents. Alvarado also testified at trial that the interview was a friendly conversation and was not confrontational or threatening."
6. _____ If a juvenile is more susceptible to police coercion during custodial interrogation, then the same juvenile is more susceptible to the impression that he is, in fact, in custody in the first place.
7. _____ "For the [Ninth Circuit] Court to consider age was beyond the clear weight of Supreme Court precedent, therefore ... Alvarado's conviction on the basis of his testimony [should be] reinstated."
8. _____ What reasonable person, brought to a police station by his parents at police request, put in a small interrogation room, questioned for two solid hours, and confronted with claims that there is strong evidence that he participated in a serious crime, could have thought to himself, "Well, anytime I want to leave I can just get up and walk out?"

• What are Miranda Warnings?
• When are they required?
• What is the exclusionary rule?

Thanks for your attention