Criminal Justice: Analysis of Miranda v. Arizona and Its Implications

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, focusing on the constitutional rights of individuals during police interrogation. The paper begins by outlining the historical context leading up to the case, including the pre-Miranda era and the evolution of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. It then delves into the specifics of the Miranda ruling, explaining the requirements for informing suspects of their rights, often referred to as the Miranda warning. The report explores the implications of a breach of Miranda rights, discussing how such violations can render statements inadmissible in court. The analysis also covers related cases like California v. Stewart, Vignera v. New York, and Westover v. United States. Furthermore, the report highlights the importance of the Miranda warning in safeguarding individuals from self-incrimination and ensuring a fair legal process, emphasizing its continued relevance in contemporary criminal justice. The report concludes by underscoring the significance of the Miranda ruling in protecting the rights of the accused and preventing potential abuses by law enforcement agencies.

Running head: CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL JUSTICE
A person arrested by the police has a right to be informed his constitutional right
against self-incrimination and a right to be assisted by a counsel in regard to the arrest. The
police officer making the arrest is bound to inform the same to the person arrested as
otherwise the statements given by the arrested person shall not be admissible in the court of
law as seen in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a landmark case
decided by the United States Supreme Court in this matter. The law enforcement system was
heavily impacted by the implementation of this rule which marked the principle of this case
as ‘Miranda warning’ or ‘Mirandizing’ and made it a part of the police protocol while
arresting a person (Schauer, 2013). In this regard, the paper would strive to discuss about the
history behind this case, thereby analysing the effects of breach of this rule.
In the case of Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 majority had
held that exculpatory as well as inculpatory statements given by a defendant at the time of
interrogation will be admitted by a trial court only if the arrested defendant was informed
about his right against self (Maclin, 2015). In this circumstance, it should be proved that the
person arrested aware office rights and voluntarily give them away knowing the
consequences This gave birth to the principle of Mirandizing where it is a duty of the police
authority to ensure that the person arrested has been informed about his right against self
incrimination, why he has been arrested or when he is interrogated (Maclin, 2015). As
otherwise, a person who is not aware of his right against self incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment of the US Constitution, his self incriminating statements would not be
admissible at trial. Three other significant cases what discussed by the supreme court while it
was dealing with the case of Miranda v Arizona, namely California v Stewart, Vignera v
New York and Westover v United States. In the light of the Miranda ruling, it was declared
a mandate to be ensured by the law enforcement agency of the United States to make a
person over of his constitutional right to be silent and beware of self incrimination while he is

2CRIMINAL JUSTICE
being interrogated at the police custody. The purpose of this ruling has been pointed out to
ensure that a person is made aware of the consequences which is going to come down upon
him in case he self incriminates, knowing that his actions and statements are going to be used
against him in a court of law.
Before Miranda Warning
Before the Miranda case came into existence and changed the outlook of criminal
justice jurisprudence, the implementation of the Fifth Amendment was negligible by the
court. Prior to 1960s the confession of a suspect used to be admissible in a court of law based
on how voluntary such confession was under the American criminal justice jurisprudence
(Smalarz, Scherr, & Kassin, 2016). With the passing time and the number of disputes the
Courts understood the importance of the implementation of the Fifth Amendment right that
protects Americans against self incrimination along with the Fourteenth Amendment right,
protecting people against the due process clause. The court in the case of Spano v New York
360 US 315, 321 n2 (1959) and Brown v Mississippi 297 US 278 (1936) laid down certain
test in order to examine whether an arrested person was influenced or manipulated for
making the confession. Voluntariness of confession was a crucial factor adjudged by the
court in terms of admitting self incriminated statements of the arrested persons. The courts
however changed its vision with the case of Malloy v Hogan 378 US 1 (1964) where it was
held that the application of the fifth amendment right protecting people against self
incrimination is incorporated in the fourteenth amendment rights of the due process clause
which is applicable to the States (Green, 2013).
In the case of Bram v United States 168 US 532 (1897) the court had discussed that
a confession would be marked as incompetent in case it was not made voluntarily, thereby
attracting the implementation of the fifth amendment which protects a person from being
compelled to become a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. The fact whether the

3CRIMINAL JUSTICE
confession obtained from an arrested person has been gathered freely, with voluntary means
without making any implied promises to the arrested person. In the Malloy v Hogan case, the
outline and the structure of the Miranda decision was shaped by the Supreme Court (Green,
2013).
The case of Escobedo v Illinois 378 US 478 (1964) so that the plaintiff was held in
the custody and interrogated for several hours in order to make him confess without out
making him know office right to be silent and to demand the presence of a Counsel in that
situation. Moreover the petitioner's request to have a counsel present during such
interrogation was denied by the police, thereby breaching the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment
Right. The court in this case had held that in situations when an arrested person is denied of
his right to consult his Counsel during interrogation, the process transforms to an accusatory
process from investigatory. Hence, to keep the integrity of a fair process of investigation, an
accused should be given the permission to ask his lawyer to be present while he is being
interrogated in a police custody, in order to safeguard himself from being pressurized to self
incriminate (Green, 2013). Therefore the Escodebo case could be cited as the last landmark
case before the Miranda case that highlighted the implementation of the Sixth Amendment
right of an accused to have his Counsel present while he is interrogated in the custody which
indirectly protects the accused of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. This
could be marked as the background behind the case of Miranda v Arizona (Green, 2013).
Breach of Mirandizing or Miranda Warning
California v Stewart, Vignera v New York and Westover v United States were
decided along with the Miranda v Arizona case where the court held that an accused arrested
by the police shall have his fifth amendment right, irrespective of the fact whether it is a
criminal proceeding, in order to protect himself from being influenced or manipulated to self
incriminate. The court directs that the prosecution shall not be allowed to use a statement

4CRIMINAL JUSTICE
made by the accused, inculpatory or exculpatory, in case statement was recorded as to when
the accused was unaware of his right to remain silent and ask for legal assistance during the
interrogation at police custody. The phrase 'interrogation at police custody’ refers to the
process of questioning carried out by the law enforcement agency as soon as a person is
arrested and taken into custody (Smalarz, Scherr, & Kassin, 2016). A breach of the provision
of the Fifth Amendment not only makes a person open to self incrimination but also deprived
of his freedom to act freely in a significant situation.
It was further pointed out by the court in the Miranda case that a person who is not
protected by the right against self incrimination automatically faces a compelling pressure
which overpower the accused’s mental resistance not to speak against him, thereby forcing
him to self incriminate (Schauer, 2013). Therefore in this regard, an accused that has been
held in the police custody for interrogation or has been arrested must be made aware of his
Fifth Amendment rights before putting him under the process of questioning. In this regard,
people arrested are now bound to be told that they have a right to remain silent as otherwise
their statement would be used against them in a court of law, along with having a right to ask
for an attorney (Maclin, 2015). As per the sixth amendment right, a person has the right to
ask a lawyer to be present while he is being interrogated in the police custody, and increase a
person cannot bear the expense of an attorney, the government shall be liable to appoint one
for him before he is being questioned.
Therefore, by going through the collected information of the case study along with its
origin, it could be adjudged that the rule of Miranda Warning or Mirandizing is bearing a
vital importance even in today's time as it is the utmost law that is safeguarding and accused
from being a victim of manipulation by the law enforcement agency that has been evidenced
over the passage of time. A person’s right against self incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment of the US Constitution is therefore a much celebrated law, protecting innocents

5CRIMINAL JUSTICE
who are often manipulated to give statement against themselves, either under apprehension or
allured by immunity deals that most law enforcement agencies make use of in order to
dispose of matters expeditiously.

6CRIMINAL JUSTICE
References
Bram v United States 168 US 532 (1897)
Brown v Mississippi 297 US 278 (1936)
California v Stewart
Escobedo v Illinois 378 US 478 (1964)
Green, P. (2013). Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence: Questions Left Unanswered by Salinas v.
Texas. Ariz. Summit L. Rev., 7, 395.
Maclin, T. (2015). A comprehensive analysis of the history of interrogation law, with some
shots directed at Miranda v. Arizona.
Malloy v Hogan 378 US 1 (1964)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Schauer, F. (2013). The Miranda Warning. Wash. L. Rev., 88, 155.
Smalarz, L., Scherr, K. C., & Kassin, S. M. (2016). Miranda at 50: A psychological
analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 455-460.
Spano v New York 360 US 315, 321 n2 (1959)
Vignera v New York
Westover v United States