Miranda V. Arizona (1966) - Dissent

Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Dissent

On March 3, 1963, Patricia Weir, an 18 year old girl who worked in the local movie theater, was kidnapped and raped, by Mr. Ernesto Miranda. Mr. Miranda, saw her walking home from the bus stop, and shortly after, approached her saying “you don’t have to scream. I am not going to hurt you.” He forced her into his car and tied up both her feet and hands, while continuously threatening to hurt her if she resisted in any way. After about 20 minutes, Mr. Miranda was alone, with no-one around, with Ms. Weir and he raped her while she cried. When Ernesto was done, he drove Patricia home and he asked if she would “tell on [him],” to which she did not respond. Miranda had no idea how to ask for forgiveness, so instead, he asked her to say a prayer for him. Miss Weir then ran home, told her family, and called the police. A little over a week later, Mr. Miranda was arrested at his house and was identified by Miss Weir in a line-up. He was then questioned by Officer Cooley and Detective Young in an interrogation that lasted for only two hours. After the two hour interrogation, Ernesto finally wrote a confession which was then used during his trial.

The question that was brought up to the courts was, whether or not both the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel extend to police interrogation of a suspect, in other words, pre trial process. During Mr. Miranda’s interrogation, he had “…full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.”

However, it was later claimed that those rights were actually violated .The trial court admitted Miranda’s confession as evidence, and allowed the officers to testify before the court. Miranda was found guilty on account of kidnapping and rape, and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment for both. On Appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda’s conviction. They held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he never specifically requested counsel. The day of Mr. Miranda’s trial, there was one main argument with several outliers that was presented to the court. The argument was whether or not the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision passed the voluntariness standard and that Mr. Miranda should have know his legal rights because that is what is expected of him as an American Citizen.

During oral arguments, Mr. Miranda’s counsels tried to argue against the voluntariness standard in regards to his confession. However, in order to challenge a confession under the voluntariness standard, it is required to show two things. First off, whether or not the police used coercive conduct. Second, whether or not the conduct was sufficient to overcome the will of the suspect. During the interrogation, there was absolutely no coercive force used by the police officers questioning