Miranda v. Arizona（與淑文、志豪完成的case brief）

　　　　　　Miranda v. Arizona
　　　　　　　Supreme Court of the United States 1966
　　　　　　384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694

Facts:
Petitioner, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. He was there identified by the complaining witness. The police then took him to "Interrogation Room No. 2" of the detective bureau. There he was questioned by 2 police officers.
2 hours later, the officers emerged from the interrogation room with a written confession signed by Miranda. At the top of the statement was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity and "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed.

Court Decision:
On certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed.[1]

Issue:
Whether the suspect's confession is admissible if he or she wasn't informed of constitutional rights before being interrogated ?

Reasoning:
1. The individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
2. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.
3. It's clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation.
4. Without these warnings, the statements were inadmissible.

Rule of law:
Confessions obtained by police are admissible only if the suspect was informed of his or her certain constitutional rights before being interrogated. These rights include：
(1) Right to remain silent
(2) Right to the presence of an attorney
(3) Right to have an attorney appointed by the State if the suspect cannot afford one[2]

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
[1] On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed. On certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed, holding that defendant's confession was inadmissible because he was not in any way apprised of his right to counsel nor was his privilege against self-incrimination effectively protected in any other manner.

[2] When a person is in custody, some version of the Miranda rights, such as the following, is read to the individual before questioning: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up 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 an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning."