Miranda Rule

Miranda rule includes two aspects:

First, the right to silence. This has been known by 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, so as to reduce and avoid extorting confessions by torture, luring confessions or making false confessions afraid of power, is an important right of criminal suspects under the principle of presumption of innocence generally established in all countries in the world today, which affirms that criminal suspects cannot be forced to prove themselves guilty;

Second, the right to get the help of a lawyer. The personal strength of the 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 interrogation procedures, which is essential in a certain procedure. Therefore, those who cannot afford to hire lawyers should be provided free of charge by the government to ensure equality before the law.

Miranda's case originated from 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 for raping an underage girl a week ago. She found his 1953 Packard car afterwards and recognized that it belonged to the man who gave her a lift and raped her after driving to the desert. When he left her, he said, "Pray for me."

From1March 2, 963, at dawn, the police officers took turns questioning the young mexican american. Their purpose: confession.

Mr. Debs is now an outstanding defense lawyer in Phoenix. That night, he was one of the agents staying at the police station. He doesn't remember the suspect very much now. "He is a little Mexican boy. In those days, he was such an insignificant person. " However, Debs did remember that his colleagues used all permissible means, from "good COP and bad COP" to threatening to put all kinds of charges on his head.

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

Miranda finally signed the written confession. In court, the police admitted that they had not told him of his right to a lawyer or reminded him that he could not answer police questions.

Years later, Miranda would say this about that day: "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 mentioned one charge first, and then another, and they decided that I was that person. "

Ernesto was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years. David Miranda, his closest nephew, said that no one cared about the case afterwards. David was 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 the defendants led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Under his auspices, the court has been weakening the power of the police in order to correct what it considers unfair in the judicial system.

Even before the Miranda ruling in 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, on the basis of the above ruling, it was confirmed that the suspect had the right to ask a lawyer to be present during the police interrogation.

"We realized at that time that our actions were carried out under the microscope," recalled Debs, a former detective. "I remember when I was in the police university, someone told me that the law should change and be cautious. However, it goes without saying that once you get 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 opinion, he challenged the police manual at that time. It instructs interrogators to "control and overwhelm the object of interrogation" and "interrogation should be decisive and firm, and never be soft", sometimes for several days; It even instructed to "trick confessions."

Nephew's memory

Ironically, after Ernesto's unhappy experience with the Phoenix police, his nephew became a police agent. Dave recites Miranda warnings to the suspects every day, but those words mean more to him. "It's strange to read Miranda rights to others," said the old policeman with 19 police years, twitching his black and white moustache. "Every time I read it, I think of him."

One of the things Dave Miranda thought happened during his service in Germany with the American army. A soldier walked by with a copy of Star and Stripes, and the headline "Miranda killed leading to a landmark verdict" came into his eyes.

"I was upset," 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, the case of Ernesto was retried without a confession. As a result, the verdict is still guilty. 1973 After being released on parole, Ernesto went to live with his brother Rubin. But life is very difficult for this shy and taciturn Ernesto. Dave Miranda said, "The person who wants to find a job is a man with a criminal record, and his name is Miranda. It is impossible for this name not to attract the attention of employers, and it is impossible not to attract the attention of anyone. This attracted a lot of attention that he didn't want. "

Fame only brought Ernesto meager benefits. 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 was released and then lived with his brother. Due to misunderstanding, he refused to attend the wedding ceremony held at home and went to La Amapola Bar in the city center. A poker game turned into a fistfight. Ernesto was stabbed to death with a curved kitchen knife when he washed the blood from his hand and reappeared.

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

Anyone who has seen an American movie with the plot of American police arresting criminal suspects will see the police read Miranda 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 a lawyer. If you want a lawyer, but you can't afford one, you can find one for you before the police interrogation. "

The specific content of Miranda's advice

Miranda advice

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

1966, the United States 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.

2. You have the right to entrust a lawyer before being questioned by the police, and the lawyer can accompany you in the whole process of being questioned.

3. 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.

5. If you want to talk to your lawyer, you can stop answering questions at any time, and you can have your lawyer accompany you throughout the inquiry.

If the police didn't give Miranda advice, the evidence collected from it 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 litigants. The establishment of Miranda rule has changed the way American police handle cases. It has very important value in procedure.

First, 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. "Right against 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 methods such as torture to the reconnaissance stage, and the establishment of Miranda rule provided a further guarantee for the application of the principle against self-incrimination in reconnaissance activities. The scope of application of this rule is the facts that may lead to punishment or heavier 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 clues to the crime. It is precisely because one party has no obligation to help the other party to obtain weapons against himself, the other party to the lawsuit must rely on its own strength to obtain weapons against its opponent. In this way, the prosecution is forced to give up its dependence on the population of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings. Nowadays, in the United States, this rule has been extended to mean that no government agency can force anyone to testify against himself. The evidence function of the defendant's confession in criminal trial has changed.

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

The third value is to strengthen the defense forces of criminal suspects and defendants. ⑤ 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 educational level or lack of legal knowledge. They don't know what their rights are. The application of the "Miranda rule" enables them to say things that are not good for themselves first. He can keep silent and wait until a lawyer provides legal help before deciding what he should do and say. So as to balance the litigation power and protect their litigation rights and interests in procedure. 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 thoughts of procedural justice, which in turn are the foundation and source of the right to silence, and come into being with specific rules. Because of this, the "Miranda rule" was accepted by all walks of life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some landmark cases in Miranda's rights history

197 1 year: The ruling of Harris vs. New York is often referred to as the first blow to Miranda's rights. The Supreme Court ruled that statements made by defendants who were not informed of Miranda's rights could be used to refute their court statements.

1975: The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Oregon vs. Hass that even after the suspect asked for the presence of a lawyer, the statement obtained by police interrogation can still be used to refute his court confession.

1999: the federal court of appeal in Richmond, Virginia ruled that the public prosecutor could use the confession made before his rights were read to him.