Miranda rule

Miranda rule includes two aspects:

First, the right to silence. This has been known to the world and has become a powerful tool to protect the basic human rights of criminal suspects. The right to silence, that is, not answering questions, is an important right of criminal suspects under the principle of presumption of innocence, which affirms that criminal suspects cannot be forced to prove their guilt.

Second, the right to get the help of a lawyer. The personal strength of the criminal suspect is not enough to ensure the "normal" interrogation, and the participation of lawyers plays a supervisory role in ensuring the legality and effectiveness of the interrogation procedure, which is essential in a certain procedure. Therefore, the government should provide free services for those who can't afford lawyers to ensure that everyone is equal before the law.

Miranda's case originated in a dungeon-like interrogation room in the basement of the Phoenix Police Department.

Ernesto Miranda, a high school dropout with a criminal record, was arrested a week ago for raping an underage girl. She later found his 1953 Packard car and recognized it as the man who gave her a lift and raped her after driving to the desert. When he left her, he said, "Pray for me."

At dawn on March 2nd, 1963, the police took turns questioning the young mexican american. Their purpose: repentance.

Mr. Debs is now an outstanding defense lawyer in Phoenix. That night, he was one of the agents who stayed at the police station. He doesn't remember the suspect very much now. "He is a little boy in Mexico. At that time, he was such an insignificant person. " However, Debs does remember that his colleagues used all permitted means, from "good police and bad police" to threatening to put all kinds of charges on him.

"I remember several of us have been asking him," he said. "We tried our best to make him confess. After a while, he confessed. I think persistence is victory. "

Miranda finally signed a written confession. In court, the police admitted that they did not tell him that he had the right to hire a lawyer, nor did they remind him that he could not answer police questions.

Years later, Miranda would describe that day like this: "I haven't slept since the night before." I am tired. They took me away for questioning as soon as I got off work. They raised one charge first, then another, and they decided that I was the man. "

Ernesto was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. David Miranda, his closest nephew, said that no one cared about the case later. David is still a child. "We thought this case was over." Actually, no.

An unexpected milestone

The Miranda case will be the culmination of the Supreme Court's achievements in protecting the rights of defendants under the leadership of Chief Justice earl warren. Under his presidency, the court has been weakening the power of the police to correct what it thinks is unfair in the judicial system.

Even before the Miranda ruling of 1966, many people in law enforcement knew that there would be changes, and it would be soon. 1963 the supreme court ruled that all criminal defendants have the right to consultation; One year later, according to the above ruling, it was confirmed that the suspect had the right to ask a lawyer to be present at the police interrogation.

"We realized at that time that our actions were carried out under a microscope," recalled Debs, a former detective. "I remember when I was in the police university, someone told me that the law should be changed and be cautious. However, it goes without saying that once you are on the street, it is another matter. "

Even so, few people expected that Miranda rights would provide such comprehensive protection measures. The Chief Justice personally wrote a written opinion on the ruling passed by 5 votes to 4 votes. In his view, he challenged the police manual at that time. It instructs interrogators to "control and overwhelm the interrogators" and "interrogation should be decisive and resolute, and never be soft", sometimes for several days; It even indicates "cheat confession".

Nephew's memory

Ironically, after Ernest's unhappy experience with the Phoenix police, his nephew became a police agent. Dave recited Miranda warnings to the suspect every day, but these words meant more to him. "It's strange to read Miranda's rights to others," said the old policeman with 19 police year, twitching his black and white moustache. "Every time I read this, I will think of him."

One thing that occurred to Dave Miranda happened during his service in Germany for the American army. A soldier walked by with a copy of the Stars and Stripes newspaper, and the title "Miranda's murder led to landmark judgment" came into his eyes.

"I'm depressed," he said. "We have been waiting for him to get out of prison in those years. He was finally free, but he never had a chance to start a new life. "

After the Supreme Court ruled, Ernesto's case was retried without pleading guilty. As a result, the verdict is still guilty. 1973 After parole, Ernesto went to live with his brother Rubin. But for this shy and silent Ernesto, life is very difficult. Dave Miranda said, "The person who wants to find a job is a man with a criminal record. His name is Miranda. It is impossible for this name not to attract the attention of the employer, nor to attract the attention of anyone. This attracted a lot of attention that he didn't want. "

Fame only brings meager benefits to Ernesto. It is said that he sold a small card with his signature and Miranda rights on the streets of Phoenix for one or two dollars. Not long after, he was sent back to prison for violating parole.

1976 after being released, he lived with his brother. Due to misunderstanding, he refused to attend the wedding held at home and went to La Amapola Bar in downtown. A poker game turned into a fight. Ernesto was stabbed to death with a curved kitchen knife when the blood on his hand reappeared after being washed away.

The murderer was never caught. I caught an accomplice that night. Before taking him to the police station, a police officer in Phoenix took out a card 6.35 cm long and 9 cm long and began to write: "You have the right to remain silent ..."

Anyone who has seen an American movie with the American police arresting the suspect will see the police read Miranda's rights:

"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up your right to remain silent, everything you say will be used against you in court. You have the right to an attorney. If you want a lawyer, but you can't afford it, you can find one for you before the police interrogate you. "

The specific content of Miranda's suggestion

Miranda advice

Refers to the provision that American police should inform detained suspects of their rights before interrogating them. These rights are:

In 1966, the US Supreme Court finally determined the Miranda rule, which reads as follows:

The Constitution requires me to tell you the following rights:

1. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say to any policeman may be used as evidence against you in court.

You have the right to entrust a lawyer before being questioned by the police, and the lawyer can accompany you to be questioned all the time.

If you can't afford the lawyer's fee, as long as you agree, you will be provided with a lawyer for free before all inquiries.

If you don't want to answer questions, you can terminate the conversation at any time.

If you want to talk to your lawyer, you can stop answering questions at any time, and you can ask your lawyer to accompany you during the whole inquiry.

If the police didn't give Miranda advice, the evidence collected from there would not be accepted by the court.

Procedural value

Miranda rule mainly embodies the procedural rules to protect the defendant's human rights, and the value of procedural justice lies in fair competition between the parties. The establishment of Miranda rule has changed the way American police handle cases. It has very important procedural value.

First of all, the Miranda rule makes Article 5 of the American Constitution Amendment "No one shall be forced to testify against himself in a criminal case" more specific, thus strengthening the burden of proof of the prosecution. "The right to oppose self-incrimination" is one of the judicial norms of the United Nations, and many countries have established this principle. In 1930s, the Supreme Court of the United States applied the evidence obtained by illegal means such as torture to the investigation stage, and the establishment of Miranda rule provided a further guarantee for the application of the principle of prohibiting self-incrimination in investigation activities. The scope of application of this rule is the facts that may lead to punishment or aggravate punishment, including the facts that directly prove the crime, the facts that indirectly prove the crime and the facts that lead to the discovery of criminal clues. It is precisely because one party has no obligation to help the other party to obtain the weapon aimed at itself that the other party in the lawsuit must rely on its own strength to obtain the weapon aimed at the opponent. In this way, the prosecution was forced to give up its dependence on the population of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings. Today, in the United States, this rule has been extended to mean that no government agency can force anyone to testify against themselves. The evidential function of the defendant's confession in criminal trial has changed.

Second, the Miranda rule establishes the definition of trial in criminal proceedings. The so-called "interrogation" (4) is generally understood as interrogation, and its purpose is to extract evidence from the mouth of the questioner. If the police ask the arrested person, "Did you kill this man?" This question is interrogation, of course. After Miranda's case is published, if the arrested person chooses to remain silent, the testimony obtained from such interrogation can certainly not be used as evidence. This requires the police to inform the arrested person of the "Miranda warning" before interrogating him, otherwise it will constitute a trial. Of course, this trial is illegal, and the evidence and clues of the case obtained from the trial are not allowed to enter the judicial process. Therefore, in police reconnaissance activities, the legality of interrogation has a specific boundary.

The third value is to strengthen the defense power of criminal suspects and defendants. French philosopher Pierre Leroux once said, "Equality creates justice and constitutes justice". However, in criminal proceedings, the litigants are unequal, especially for the poor and the groups with low education or lack of legal knowledge. They don't know what their rights are. The application of "Miranda rule" enables them to speak against themselves first. He can keep silent and wait until the lawyer provides legal help before deciding what he should do and say. So as to balance the litigation power in procedure and protect their litigation rights and interests. In a word, "Miranda rule" is the concrete embodiment of the right to silence, and it is also the concentrated embodiment of a series of procedural justice thoughts, which in turn are the basis and source of the right to silence, and come into being with specific rules. Because of this, the "Miranda rule" has been accepted by all walks of life.

-

Some landmark cases in Miranda's rights history

197 1: The decision in Harris v. new york is often called the first blow to Miranda's rights. The Supreme Court ruled that statements made by defendants without being informed of Miranda's rights could be used to refute their court statements.

1975: In the case of Oregon v. Haas, the Supreme Court ruled that even after the suspect asked for the presence of a lawyer, the statement obtained by the police interrogation could still be used to refute his court confession.

1999: the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia ruled that the prosecutor can use the confession made before his rights were read to him.