Miranda Introduction

Question 1

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 1

Ernesto Miranda was arrested and taken to a police station where he was interrogated without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney.
During the interrogation, Miranda confessed to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman.
His confession, obtained without any advisement of rights or access to legal counsel, was later used at trial, leading to his conviction.
Miranda appealed his conviction, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated.

Issue
The central legal issue in Miranda v. Arizona was whether the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extends to the police interrogation of a suspect in custody and, if so, what procedures must be followed to ensure that the suspect’s rights are protected.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is indeed applicable during police interrogations of individuals in custody.
The Court established that law enforcement officials must advise a detainee of their rights prior to interrogation.
Specifically, individuals must be informed of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, their right to the presence of an attorney, and if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them prior to any questioning if they so desire.

Question 2

Dickerson v. United States

Answer 2

Facts
The petitioner, Charles Thomas Dickerson, was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. Before his trial, Dickerson moved to suppress a statement he made at an FBI field office, arguing he had not received Miranda warnings prior to interrogation. The District Court granted the motion to suppress, but on appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which allows the admissibility of confessions based on their voluntariness rather than compliance with Miranda warnings, was constitutional and applicable.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari due to the significant constitutional questions raised.

Issue
The primary issue was whether Congress could legislatively overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, which required law enforcement to provide warnings to suspects about their rights before custodial interrogation, with 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which prioritized the voluntariness of confessions over the provision of Miranda warnings.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that Miranda, being a constitutional decision, could not be legislatively overruled by Congress through 18 U.S.C. § 3501. Therefore, the Miranda decision and its requirements for the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogations remain governing law in both state and federal courts

Question 3

5th admendment

Answer 3

The 5th Amendment is commonly known as the double jeopardy law. Those tried and acquitted for a crime cannot be tried again for that same crime. Also, the accused cannot be asked to be a witness against themselves.