On June 13, 1966, the United States Supreme Court issued one of the best known decisions in its history: Miranda vs. Arizona. The Miranda court re-emphasized the importance of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in the face of government allegations, while a companion right embodied in the Sixth Amendment guaranteed a citizen's right to consult with an attorney before answering questions posed by police or government agents.
Miranda did nothing to change or alter those rights which have protected citizens for over 200 years. Instead, the Miranda court simply required police to notify citizens of those basic rights as part of arrest or custody procedures before interrogation, a procedure that takes no more than a couple of couple of minutes.The now-famous Miranda admonition requires police to inform a suspect that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says will be used against him in court, that he has the right to consult with a lawyer prior to questioning, and that if he cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent him. This basic and simple admonition is under attack, not by law enforcement, the attorney general or the president but instead by the Washington Legal Foundation, a private special-interest organization located in Washington, D.C.
The foundation uses hysteria and statistics to argue that Miranda is resulting in the release of otherwise guilty people. This is simply untrue. These same arguments were made and rejected in 1966.
The safeguards embodied in Miranda serve to protect against compulsion or forced confessions. Interrogations are usually initiated by bringing the accused into the unfamiliar and often frightening atmosphere of a police station. The accused is then run through a series of police interrogation techniques.
Some of those techniques begin with the police stating their belief in the suspect's guilt. It then expands into the use of "baited" questions -- questions designed to suggest that police possess incriminating evidence tying the accused to the crime when no such evidence exists. This evidence may consist of the claim that the accused's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, that a co-defendant placed the blame on the accused or that an eyewitness identified the accused, when none of these facts are true. The Miranda court recognized the general unfairness of these types of interrogations, which prior to 1966, were conducted without an accused being made aware of his right to remain silent and consult with a lawyer.
Of course, these type of interrogations may still take place since an accused can still waive his Miranda rights and agree to speak with the police. In fact, most people do waive their rights and agree to speak with police without a lawyer. Even so, the Miranda admonition is simply designed to allow an accused, who is presumed innocent, to make an informed choice before speaking with his interrogators.
While the vast majority of law enforcement officials are decent, honest and hardworking people who honor the rights of the accused, Miranda nonetheless serves as a safeguard to protect against the temptation of compulsion and forced questioning. The recent revelations of corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department serve as a sober reminder of the necessity for Miranda-type safeguards and consistency and predictability in rules governing police conduct.
Miranda should stand as a reminder that our democracy exists because of constitutional rules embodied in the fight to a lawyer and the right to remain silent in the face of government accusations. A simple two-minute reminder of those rules protects all of us and should remain intact.
Richard P. Mauro is president of the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.