”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 speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”

Most Americans have heard these four sentences, even if not from a law enforcement officer as they are a pillar of our country’s criminal justice system. The Miranda warnings, as this phrase is known, turns 50 this month. The sentences are supposed to be read to detained criminal suspects prior to any questioning.  The Miranda warnings inform or remind a suspect of his or her legal rights during interrogation. Where did this text come from? Why do we read it and when was it first read?

A man, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested in 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, for the kidnap and rape of a woman. The man had had several encounters with the law before. In this situation, he offered the police a verbal confession. The victim was able to identify Ernesto Miranda as the person who had committed the crimes in question. Next, Ernesto Miranda wrote and signed a confession. Preprinted on that sheet of paper was the text: “…this statement has been made voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make can and will be used against me.” This may seem just like the Miranda warnings, but, in fact, it is missing a couple of key elements.

Mr. Miranda was convicted  and sentenced to up to 30 years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction in the Arizona State Supreme Court but lost the appeal. Miranda’s case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. His lawyer argued that because of Miranda’s limited education and fragile mental state, he was not fully aware of his rights. The lawyer argued that Miranda did not understand the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. These amendments provide for the right to counsel if you are accused of a crime and the right against self-incrimination. Mr. Miranda was not afforded these rights in his original case. The attorney stated that the manner in which Miranda confessed and the fact that he was not aware of his legal rights should mean that his conviction was unconstitutional—his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated. The court, presided by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled 5-4 in Miranda’s favor in Miranda v. Arizona on June 13, 1963. This recognition of a criminal suspect’s rights led to the creation of the Miranda warnings that are still in use today.
If you have been accused of a crime or need advice regarding a criminal investigation, then call the Law Offices of Julie Rendelman, LLC. Julie Rendelman is an experienced lawyer who offers thoughtful representation. She has over 20 years of experience, having worked as a prosecutor in Kings County (Brooklyn) and a criminal defense attorney. Call 212-951-1232 to set up a free consultation to review your rights and determine a plan of action to tackle a criminal allegation. Visit www.RendelmanLaw.com to learn more about Ms. Rendelman’s practice.