Miranda Warnings
As part of American criminal procedure, four warnings are awarded to every individual when law enforcement custodially interrogates them as a trial lawyer can share. These rights include the right to silence, the ability for the government to use what you say against you, the right to counsel during an interrogation, and the right to have counsel appointed if the individual cannot afford counsel. They are called Miranda rights and derive from the Warren Court in the seminal case Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda collects four cases in which law enforcement took a defendant into custody and interrogated them to obtain a confession. Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 440 (1966). The Court defines “custodial interrogation” as the “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id. at 444. The Miranda rules enforce the concept that the prosecution may not use statements from a custodial interrogation, regardless of whether it is exculpatory or inculpatory, unless these procedural safeguards are instituted to prevent the privilege of self-incrimination. Id.
Before questioning, the individual must be warned they have a right to be silent. Id. They also must be warned that if they choose not to be silent after being informed of this right, the content of their statements may be used as evidence against them. Id. The individual is granted the right to have an attorney, whether they retain that attorney or if an attorney is appointed. Id. While these rights prevent individuals from self-incriminating themselves, the defendant may waive these rights. These rights must be waived “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Id. The government maintains the burden of demonstrating that the individual knowingly and intelligently waived these rights. Id. at 475. The individual’s answering of questions or statements would then be allowed to be used as evidence, but this knowing and intelligent waiver must be made after the individual has been allowed to exercise these rights. Id. at 479. Nonetheless, if at any point the individual wishes to consult an attorney before they speak, or if the individual indicates that they do not want to be interrogated, the police may not question him. Id. at 445. The right is not deprived if the individual offers statements or answers questions and subsequently refrains from answering any more questions until they have consulted an attorney. Id.
Miranda allows individuals to refrain from incriminating themselves when being interrogated once their freedoms have been deprived in any significant way, specifically while in custody. Custodial interrogations are inherently coercive. The individual held in custody is immediately at a disadvantage, as their environment is one of intimidation. The ability of the individual to refuse to speak or refuse to speak until they have had the opportunity to discuss with an attorney. Miranda “evens the landscape” to arrestees by allowing them to preserve their right against self-incrimination from a coercive environment when they are being questioned in custody.
Thanks to Eglet Adams for their insight on Miranda warnings.