Miranda Rights: Why You Have the Right to Remain Silent

Podcast Transcript

Few phrases in American law are more familiar than “You have the right to remain silent.”

They are spoken in police stations, on city streets, and in countless movies and television shows.

Yet behind those words is a real criminal case, a controversial Supreme Court decision, and a legal rule that changed policing in the United States.

It is a story about confessions, constitutional rights, and the limits of police interrogation.

Learn more about Miranda Rights on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily.

If you haven’t been arrested, or even if you don’t live in the United States, you’ve probably seen enough movies and television shows to know the phrase “you have the right to remain silent.”

This is not an invention of Hollywood. They derive from rights provided in the US Constitution, but the particular application that you are familiar with stems from one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions in American history.

Miranda Rights are fundamentally intertwined with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment says, No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment says, In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

The origin of Miranda Rights can be traced back to the US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966.

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by police in Phoenix, Arizona. Miranda had a complicated history with the law, having previous juvenile convictions and arrests, as well as having previously served time in prison.

Miranda was brought in after the police interviewed an 18-year-old kidnapping and rape victim who provided a description similar to Miranda’s. Additionally, an eyewitness had identified a truck that had belonged to Miranda in connection to the case.

Phoenix Police, confident in their witnesses, took Miranda into custody, where the victim identified him as the kidnapper.

Once at the police station, Miranda was placed in a lineup of suspects, where he was identified by the victim. Feeling confident they had their man, the police began to interview Miranda about the case, as well as an unrelated armed robbery.

Prior to and during the interview, Miranda was not informed of his right to remain silent or to have a lawyer. During his two-hour interrogation by the police, Miranda confessed to the crime and wrote out a confession.

In his written confession, Miranda said he understood his rights and that statements could be used against him.

In reality, Miranda had not been informed of his rights, which raised issues of coercion since the interrogation occurred without his awareness of constitutional protections.

Miranda was eventually assigned a court-appointed defense lawyer, Alvin Moore. When Miranda’s confession was offered as evidence in the case, Moore objected to its inclusion as it was technically considered involuntary.

The judge ruled against Moore’s objection and sentenced Miranda to a 20 to 30-year prison sentence.

Despite this ruling, Moore did not give up on Miranda, believing his Constitutional rights had been violated. He decided to appeal the case to the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that the confession was not fully voluntary.

The Arizona Supreme Court listened to Moore’s evidence in State v Miranda, but ultimately ruled that the confession was usable in court, highlighting the fact that Miranda had never asked for an attorney.

Appealing the Arizona Supreme Court decision, the case was brought before the United States Supreme Court. Attorney John Paul Frank represented Miranda in the case, emphasizing that he was never informed of his right to an attorney, a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

He was also never told of his right to remain silent, which violated the Fifth Amendment.

After hearing the case, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decisions in which the court sided with the defense, overturned the conviction, and remanded the case to Arizona for retrial.

In their justification for overturning the conviction, the majority believed that the police interview was coercive because Miranda wasn’t informed of his rights. Because of this, Miranda’s confession was inadmissible because he wasn’t aware of his rights, nor did he waive them.

As part of the ruling, the Supreme Court also reaffirmed that an individual had the right to remain silent at any time during an interrogation. Once the Fifth Amendment is invoked, an interrogation must end. Additionally, once a suspect asks for a lawyer, interrogations must cease until they get one as per the Sixth Amendment.

The judges who ruled in favor of Miranda argued that custodial interrogation needs proper safeguards to protect the accused from the pressure and compulsion they are under from law enforcement to confess.

The Supreme Court also supported its ruling by citing the fact that the FBI already legally required informing suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer.

The dissenting justices primarily focused on concerns about states’ ability to implement these requirements and the risk that failure to read these rights could lead criminals to avoid prosecution.

Back in Arizona, Miranda was retried for his crimes, this time with the confession withheld from evidence.

During the retrial, the prosecution brought in Miranda’s former friend. The police had tracked her down and claimed to the police that Miranda had confessed the crimes to her when she visited him in jail.

Between the testimony and evidence presented, Miranda was convicted again. Following his conviction, Miranda’s lawyer confessed that he had messed up the case, as he didn’t focus on whether Miranda was guilty and instead on the Constitutional issues.

After being paroled in 1972, Miranda returned to his neighborhood, where he became a local celebrity. He earned a modest income by autographing police cards that featured the Miranda Warnings.

Ernesto Miranda died in 1976 after he was stabbed in a bar during an argument. No one was ever convicted of the murder.

The Miranda decision left law enforcement with a fundamental problem, and a solution was needed quickly.

The idea for issuing Miranda Warnings originated with Professor Yale Kamisar. The idea was simple: law enforcement must issue a statement to their suspects in custody before interrogation.

Technically, there is no specific text that police must use. Specific wording varied by state and police jurisdiction. Those arrested simply must be informed of their rights. However, most common wording is something like this:

“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 talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.”

Miranda warnings are valid as long as they are clear, the rights are properly disclosed, and the defendant can waive them only voluntarily. To waive means to consciously and voluntarily give up a right. The words do not need to be in a specific order, but all rights must be stated.

To trigger the reading of these rights, suspects must be in custody or under interrogation. In this context, “in custody” means the suspect is not free to leave and is restrained. To help cover their bases, many law enforcement officers carry cards with the Miranda Rights printed on them so a suspect can read the warnings for themselves if necessary.

If the Miranda Warnings are not read, any statements made in custody cannot be used in criminal trials. Additionally, any statements made in custody before the Miranda Warnings are read are also considered invalid.

While law enforcement is allowed to investigate statements said prior to the readings of the warnings, using the direct words as evidence in a trial is strictly prohibited.

There have been a few cases that expanded and weakened Miranda Rights.

One of these cases was Berkemer v. McCarty, which was decided by the Supreme Court in 1984. This case ruled that the Miranda Rights must be read in every case, regardless of the severity of the offense.

Many law enforcement agencies were giving Miranda Warnings only to suspects arrested for serious crimes, not to those arrested for petty offenses.

In Berkemer v. McCarty the defendant, Richard McCarty, was driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana when Officer Harry Berkermer pulled him over.

Berkermer asked McCarty to leave the car and test his sobriety. After McCarty failed a balancing test and noticed that he was barely able to stand and was slurring his words, Berkermer asked if McCarty was under the influence.

McCarty answered yes, and Berkermer brought him to the county jail, where he was tested for alcohol. McCarty passed this test as it showed no alcohol being present in his system.

Berkermer then brought McCarty into interrogation, where he questioned him on drinking, something McCarty again admitted to. However, he never read his Miranda Rights.

Despite this case being relatively small when compared to crimes like kidnapping and murder, the Supreme Court ruled that the Miranda Warnings needed to be given to every person interrogated or in custody, regardless of the crime.

A case that weakened the power of Miranda Rights also occurred in 1984, in New York v. Quarles. This case allowed flexibility in issuing Miranda Warnings when there is an inherent risk to public safety.

In this case, a police officer arrested Benjamin Quarles under suspicion of rape. While making the arrest, the officer noticed that Quarles had an empty shoulder holster.

The arrest was made in public at a supermarket. The officer asked Quarles where the gun was, and he nodded in its direction and said, “Over there.”

The case was brought to the Supreme Court as Quarles had made the statement about the weapon before he was read his Miranda Rights. His lawyer believed that this statement could not be administered in evidence because of that.

The Supreme Court ruled that statements may be used as evidence when the arresting officer is asking questions that are reasonably concerned for the public’s safety.

Another case that weakened Miranda Rights was 1971’s Harris v New York. This case held that the prosecution may use confessions obtained before Miranda rights were read for the purpose of discrediting the defendant in court.

This confession could still not be used as evidence of guilt, but could be used to suggest that the defendant’s testimony was dishonest. This created a legal loophole for an illegally obtained confession to come into play during trial.

Miranda Rights have become one of the most recognizable symbols of American criminal law, but their importance goes beyond a familiar phrase from police dramas. They represent an attempt to make constitutional protections real at the exact moment when a suspect is most vulnerable.

The Executive Producer of Everything Everywhere Daily is Charles Daniel. The Associate Producers are Austin Oetken and Cameron Kieffer.

Research and writing for this episode were provided by THE Olivia Ashe.

I want to remind everyone that the 6th anniversary episode of Everything Everywhere Daily is coming up on July 1, and I’m going to turn the show over to all of you. You can record a brief audio message at https://www.speakpipe.com/EverythingEverywhere and tell me who you are, where you are from, and what your favorite episode is.

There is a link to the site at the top of the show notes.

Today’s review comes from listener mrtipton33 on Apple Podcasts in the United States. They write:

I finally did it!

I started listening to this podcast on July 2nd, 2024, while taking a trip with my family through Texas to celebrate Independence Day. 500 days and 1,957 episodes later, I am proud to say I am the newest member of the El Paso, TX Completionist Club!

Thank you, Gary, for such an amazing show! As a daily podcaster myself, I know how hard it is to do a show… however, I take my weekends and holidays off! A tip of the hat to you, and I can’t wait to listen to every show again.

Thanks, Mr Tipton! Glad to see the border region represented. Also nice to see you have time to listen if you are also doing a daily podcast.

Remember, if you leave a review of the podcast on any of the major podcast apps, you can have it read on the show.