New here?Read the story.Hear both sides on The Floor.Cast your verdict. No signup needed.
Deliberation Open
Case #5Criminal Defense
Miranda v. Arizona
Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping and rape after two hours of police interrogation - without being told he had the right to remain silent or to have an attorney. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that suspects must be informed of these rights before questioning. Law enforcement has argued this ruling handcuffs police and lets guilty people go free. Was the right call made?
Your Progress
✓
Read2
Exhibits3
Argued4
VotedWhat happened
On the night of March 13, 1963, Phoenix police arrest Ernesto Miranda for the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old woman. They put him in an interrogation room and question him for two hours. No lawyer is present. No one tells him he has the right to remain silent. He signs a written confession. The confession includes a typed statement, written by police, that says Miranda was advised of his rights. He was not. He is convicted and sentenced to twenty to thirty years.
Why this is contested
The State argues that Miranda confessed of his own free will, that his confession matches the victim's account, and that a guilty man should not walk free because police failed to recite a formula. The Defense argues that the right against self-incrimination is meaningless if defendants do not know they have it, and that confessions extracted in isolation, without counsel, are inherently suspect.
What's at stake
If the State prevails, police interrogation continues much as it has, with conviction depending on the quality of the questioner. If the Defense prevails, every arrest in America comes with a script: you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney. The cost of saying the words is the lower bound on the protections most Americans will ever know they have.