There were four different instances that were addressed by the Supreme Court’s determination in Miranda v. Arizona. These instances involve tutelary questions and in each of these instances. the suspect was cut off from the outside universe while they were being interrogated in a room by the constabulary officers. investigators. every bit good as prosecuting lawyers. In the four instances. non even one of the suspects was given a full and effectual warning of his rights during the question procedure. Furthermore. the oppugning done in all the instances elicited unwritten admittances and. in three of them. signed statements that were admitted at test. Miranda vs. Arizona ( Facts ) :
While kiping at his place. Miranda was arrested and taken into detention to a constabulary station. The kicking informant identified him in a batting order and he was interrogated by two constabularies officers. The question lasted for hours which eventually resulted to Miranda’s sign language of a written confession. At test. the unwritten and written confessions were presented to the jury and later Miranda was found guilty of snatch and colza. He was sentenced to 20-30 old ages imprisonment on each count. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona which held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were non violated in the class of obtaining the confession.
Vignera v. New York ( Facts ) :
Vignera was taken into detention by NY constabularies in connexion with the robbery of a frock store. The robbery occurred three yearss prior. He was question in the Detective Squad central office where he orally admitted to the robbery and was placed under formal apprehension. He was besides questioned by the territory lawyer in the presence of a hearing newsman who wrote the inquiries every bit good as the replies provided by Vignera. The unwritten confession and the transcript were presented to the jury and Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to 30-60 old ages of imprisonment.
Westover v. United States ( Facts ) :
Westover was a fishy in two Kansas City robberies and was arrested by local constabulary and taken to a local constabulary station. The FBI besides received a study that Westover was wanted on a felony charge in California. Westover was interrogated the dark of the apprehension and the following forenoon by local constabulary. Then. FBI agents continued the question at the station. After two and one-half hours of question by the FBI. Westover signed separate confessions. which had been prepared by one of the agents during the question. to each of the two robberies in California. These statements were introduced at test. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count. The strong belief was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
California v. Stewart ( Facts ) :
In the class of look intoing a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of hurts inflicted by her attacker. Stewart was identified as the subscriber of cheques stolen in one of the robberies. Steward was arrested at his place. Police besides arrested Stewart’s married woman and three other people who were sing him. Stewart was placed in a cell. and. over the following five yearss. was interrogated on nine different occasions. During the 9th question session. Stewart stated that he had robbed the asleep. but had non meant to ache her. At that clip. constabularies released the four other people arrested with Stewart because there was no grounds to link any of them with the offense. At test. Stewart’s statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of robbery and first grade slaying and sentenced to decease. The Supreme Court of California reversed. keeping that Stewart should hold been advised of his right to stay soundless and his right to advocate.
The issue here is whether or non statements elicited from a suspect who was subjected to a tutelary constabulary question without the constabulary following the processs which assure that the person is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and non be compelled to imply himself are admissible in a condemnable test. The tribunal held that unless the prosecution demonstrates the usage of procedural precautions effectual to procure the privilege against self-incrimination it may non utilize statements. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. stemming from tutelary question of the suspect. The Fifth Amendment serves to protect individuals in all scenes in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any important manner from being compelled to imply themselves.
The tribunal farther held that the suspect “must be warned prior to any oppugning that he has the right to stay soundless. that anything he says can be used against him in a tribunal of jurisprudence. that he has the right to the presence of an lawyer. and that if he can non afford an lawyer one will be appointed for him prior to any oppugning if he so desires. ” The ground is that “without the proper precautions the procedure of in-custody question of individuals suspected or accused of offense contains inherently obliging force per unit areas which work to sabotage the individual’s will to defy and to oblige him to talk where he would otherwise make so freely. ” The judgement of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda. the judgement of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera. the judgement of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover. were all reversed by the Supreme Court.
I think Miranda Doctrine is indispensable particularly here in the Philippines where most people are nescient of their rights when they are arrested or taken into detention by constabulary officers. Most of the clip suspected felons submit to the question done to them without any attorney present due to their degree of instruction and ignorance to the jurisprudence. There are many rogue police officers in the Philippines who take advantage of this ignorance. However. if such right is read to the accused during his apprehension and he truly understands. so it will decrease the maltreatment during the class of question that the police officer may make.