Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 467 (1966))

One day in early March 1963, a white girl in Phoenix, Arizona was kidnapped and raped by a young man with a Spanish accent. After a period of investigation, the police found a suspect named Ernesto? Miranda. Miranda was born in a Mexican immigrant family, and her father was a painter. He didn't like going to school since he was a child. He belongs to the "boy who often hangs out on the street" and has been sent to juvenile correctional institutions many times. When he was in the ninth grade, he finally dropped out of school. Later, he became a soldier and did odd jobs. His work record is not very good, too. He was once fired for absent without leave during working hours. In addition, he was sentenced for car theft and spent a year in a federal prison. Miranda was 23 years old when this case happened.

On March 13th, 1963, the police arrested Miranda and took her to the police station. The victim identified Miranda. Then, the police took Miranda to the interrogation room, where two policemen questioned her. The police did not inform Miranda of her rights under the law. During the interrogation time of more than two hours, the two policemen used all "legal" means to force Miranda to confess his crimes, including the interrogation strategy of "one being the good COP and the other being the bad COP", and finally obtained a written confession signed by Miranda. At the top of the confession, there is a paragraph printed in advance: "This confession was made voluntarily, without threats or promises of exemption. I am fully aware of my legal rights and understand that any statement I make may be used against me." The jury accepted the confession and reached a guilty verdict. Miranda refused to accept the verdict and appealed to the Supreme Court with the help of a lawyer appointed by the government. At the beginning of 1966, the Supreme Court decided to accept the case, and made a ruling to overturn the original judgment with a vote of 5: 4 on June 13th. The ruling said: "(a) ... (d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures for safeguarding the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution must be observed: Before any interrogation, the detainees must be clearly informed: 1. You have the right to remain silent, and everything you say can be in court. 2. You have the right to get the help of a lawyer and have the right to ask a lawyer to be present during interrogation; If you don't have the money to entrust a lawyer, we will appoint one for you. (e) Before or during the interrogation, the suspect expresses his desire to remain silent and the interrogation must be stopped; If he says he wants to see a lawyer, the interrogation must stop until the lawyer arrives. (f) If an interrogation is conducted in the absence of a lawyer and a confession is obtained, it is up to the government to prove that the defendant knowingly, rationally and wisely gave up his right to a lawyer. (g) During the interrogation in custody, the suspect answered some questions, but did not give up his privilege. He can also advocate silence in the subsequent interrogation. (h) Giving a warning and giving up the right is a prerequisite for the admissibility of the guilty confession or innocent plea made by the defendant. ……”。 The world-famous Miranda rule was born.

This judgment was drafted by Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court, and the Miranda case is also one of the most controversial judgments made by Justice Warren. There are also many people who blame the Miranda rule on this character with the style of judicial reform. However, in fact, the Miranda rule has its historical inevitability. "In the mid-18th century, the common law paid special attention to the defendant's right to decide whether to make a confession. blackstone warned that according to the treason law,' a confession made in a hurry and lacking protection ... should not be accepted as evidence.' ""However, by 1836, the policy tended to adopt confessions. " At that time, the practice was that no matter what the circumstances were, as long as the accused made a statement against him, "once it was effectively proved, it was enough to convict him without any reinforcement." By the early 2th century, due to the rising crime rate and cultural confusion, the judiciary was more inclined to crack down on crime. At that time, the phenomenon of extorting confessions by torture was serious, but the court let it go. In the case of Brown v. Mississippi (297 U.S. 278, 56 S. CT. 461, 8 L. ED. 682) in 1936, the testimony of the suspect obtained by hanging was used as the basis for conviction by the Mississippi court. By the 194s, some changes had taken place in the situation of police compulsory interrogation. In interrogation, the police gradually turned from torture and threats to putting pressure on the criminal suspect in a more potential way, so that the criminal suspect could make a confession against himself in a forced atmosphere. Therefore, the Federal Supreme Court shows that it is necessary to formulate a clearer test standard for the arbitrariness of confession. In addition, the racial problem in the United States in the 196s was very serious, and "the Supreme Court must know that most of the appeals about confession cases involved black defendants", "It seems that the Federal Supreme Court took the restriction of interrogation as part of its agenda for racial equality". "Taking potential coercion as a more insightful test standard should be more beneficial to poor and poorly educated defendants, thus helping to alleviate the social and economic inequalities affecting the criminal justice system". In 195s and early 196s, the Federal Supreme Court made a series of rulings in favor of defendants, which made many judges have more sympathy for those defendants who were unfairly questioned. At the same time, "the American criminal justice system always produces results that the Federal Supreme Court considers problematic." Therefore, the Supreme Court thinks that they should formulate some rules to regulate criminal judicial activities. In 1964, in the ruling of Escobedo V. Illinois 378 US 478 (1964), the Federal Supreme Court clearly stated the absolute right to remain silent for the first time, and emphasized whether it was given and correctly informed, and whether the defendant had given up the right to remain silent.

However, practice shows that this case is "an ambiguous, confusing and restricted ruling", that is, this case has not played much role. Therefore, "if the Federal Supreme Court really wants to provide protection for typical defendants, it needs to be more flexible and make greater moves. Of course, this prescription is Miranda v. Arizona case. " Therefore, the Miranda rule, which was born in 1966, cannot be said to be the result of historical development and social reality at that time.