The history of the Miranda Warning dates back to 1966 when a landmark case in the U.S. Supreme Court established the safeguard that suspects must be informed of their rights when they are placed under arrest.
Before 1966, police used a frightening array of interrogation methods that were once known as undergoing the “third degree.”
The Miranda Rights have provided a safeguard against police interrogation for the last 50 years.
The case of Miranda v. Arizona was decided on June 13, 1966. Ernesto Miranda, the defendant, was accused of robbery, rape, and kidnapping. He confessed to the crimes during police interrogation.
The case was appealed amid concerns Miranda’s Fifth Amendment Rights had been violated. When Miranda was arrested in 1963, police officers questioned him over a kidnapping and a rape.
A written confession was obtained after two hours of interrogation. The written confession was admitted into the original trial even though the defense attorney objected and police officers admitted they had not advised the defendant of his right to have an attorney present.
Miranda’s conviction was later overturned due to the allegedly intimidating police interrogation methods. A second trial was ordered which brought in witnesses and other evidence.
Miranda was again convicted of the crimes. His trial was, however, deemed to be fair, and the original conviction was upheld.
The Miranda Rights became consolidated after another trial. In 1964 the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, established a suspect has the right to legal counsel being present during police interrogation or to consult with a lawyer before being questioned by police officers if the officer intends to use answers against the suspect at a trial. The right to an attorney was established if a defendant is detained and questioned against his or her will.
California deputy attorney general Doris Maier and district attorney Harold Berliner provided finalized text for the Miranda Warning in 1968.
Before the Miranda Warning was established by the U.S. Supreme Court, confessions only had to be voluntary on the part of the suspect. Police faced a difficult situation because defendants would often claim at trial that they were not of sound mind when they gave their confession.
The Miranda Warning clearly explains the options of the defendant and makes it clear he or she does not have to say anything but any information they do give can be used against them. The Miranda Warning is used across the United States, although its wording varies from state to state.
The Miranda Warning is important because it make a defendant’s rights crystal clear and establishes the right to legal counsel.
At Abdallah Law we recognize the importance of a defendant’s rights in Illinois. If you or a loved one has been charged with a criminal offense, please schedule a free consultation via our contact form.