Your Rights

When you are arrested for a crime, a police officer starts telling you your rights. For example, "You have 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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense." (1) These are known as your Miranda rights. The police have to tell you your rights before they start questioning you. This is result of the very famous and important case called Miranda v Arizona.
In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18 year old woman. When he was brought in for questioning, the police did not tell him his rights. In that time period the police took advantage of the fact that not everyone knew their rights by heart. Even though many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were made so that those accused of crimes were treated fairly until proven guilty, most people do not know they have these rights.
Miranda was question without being told his rights and without having his attorney present. During his questioning Miranda confessed to the crime. However during his trial his lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out. His argument was that his client’s Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. The motion was denied. In 1966 the case was brought to the US Supreme Court. The question that the court needed to answer was who had the responsibility of informing a person of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights?
Miranda's lawyer believed that the use of his confession was unconstitutional, because of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment clearly state, “Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (2) “Without due of process of law,” is the key part to his argument. The lawyer furthered argue that in order for the process of law to be complete, Miranda should have been notified of his rights.
The police officers involved admitted to not telling Miranda his rights when they questioned him. They argued that because he had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must be aware of his rights. This leads to question of what is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. How informed is someone who has been convicted of a crime about the constitution? Does something happen during the trial process where people are taught their rights?
The case was brought to the US Supreme Court, who agreed to listen, along with three other similar cases, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. The court combined the cases together and since the Miranda vs. Arizona case was filed first, the decision took the name Miranda rights.
The opinion was 5 to 4 when the case was over. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren who stated, “That defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before being interrogated when in police custody.” (3)
On September 22, 1993 Archie Dixon and Timothy Hoffner arrived at the home of Kirsten Wilkerson. (4) She had Christopher Hammer staying with her. The two were accused of beating up Hammer, tying him to a bed and robbing him. They attempted to kill Hammer by burying him alive. Dixon then stole Hammer’s birth certificate and social security card and used it to get a state ID. He used the stolen items to get the title to Hammer’s car, and then sold it for $2,800.
On November 4, the police questioned Dixon about Hammer’s disappearance. Dixon denied knowing anything about it. However the police soon found a connection between Dixon and Hammer’s car. They also believed he forged Hammer’s signature to cash a check. During his questioning, Dixon admitted to stealing and forgery. He was charged with the crime of forgery.
However the police made one major mistake. They did not tell Dixon his Miranda rights before questioning him, nor did they allow a lawyer to be present even though Dixon had requested one. Meanwhile Hoffner lead police to Hammer’s body. They questioned Dixon again. However the difference this time was they gave Dixon his Miranda rights. During the questioning Dixon admitted to kidnapping, robbery and murder. During his trial Dixon was sentenced to death for his crimes.
Dixon's lawyer argued that his confessions were not “voluntary,” because he had not been told of his rights in both questioning sessions. Further arguments included that the police should have stopped the forgery questioning when he requested a lawyer. (5) Therefore Dixon’s confessions were not voluntary.
The police said that his confessions were voluntary, because he confessed to the crimes he was being questioned about when he was read his Miranda rights. During the first questioning session, he confessed to something the police weren’t even asking him about. Therefore his confessions were voluntary.
The court ruled in favor of the police. The majority was written by Justice Gilbert Merritt. "The Court noted that Dixon was not in custody when he asserted his right to an attorney, and denied his ability to assert this right before he was in formal custody. The Court reasoned that the police’s failure to give Dixon his Miranda rights during the forgery interrogation was acceptable under the constitution because his later confession to murder was properly warned and voluntary." (6)
As citizens of the United States of American, we all have rights given to us by our Constitution. Both cases focused on whether or not these Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated. In the Miranda case, he simply was not given his right at any time during questioning by the police. For Dixon, he voluntarily gave information during a questioning session. He ultimately was read his Miranda rights when questioned regarding another charge. Ultimately the arguments’ regarding their rights was decided in the US Supreme Court.
The courts have made it clear that we must insure that a person’s rights described in the Constitution are upheld. It cannot be assumed that a person automatically knows their constitutional rights. Therefore creating a consistent process for informing each and every person accused of a crime of their rights assures fairness in the judicial process. Initially that process was to simply read a person their rights. However challenges continue to be fought in the court systems as to whether or not Miranda rights are given. To strengthen the documentation of Miranda rights, some police departments have gone as far as videotaping the reading of these rights as proof. Actions such as this have been done to make each case stronger by removing any doubt that a person’s Constitutional rights were violated.
The Dixon case is such an example. He was read his Miranda rights. Yet his conviction was challenged. I believe the decision of the US Supreme Court was the right decision. Sometime it takes time to figure out how to do something right. The Miranda case showed us that everyone needs to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This established process of reading each and every person arrested a consistent statement regarding their rights has helped to clarify the point at which they have been protected, but are now being prosecuted. Even TV has helped to educate us on our rights. You can’t turn on the TV without hearing the words, “You have the right to remain silent."