Miranda Rights in Criminal Justice (Research Paper Sample)

Miranda Rights in Criminal Justice
Name
Institution
Miranda in Criminal Law
Facts of the Case
In the current case, a suspect is deprived of his freedom by police officers, and then led to make self-incriminating statements without proper warning of his Miranda rights. The officers handcuff the suspect before informing him of his crimes. Subsequently, the officers inquire from the suspect if there is any information he should tell them, and he proceeds to disclose that he has a loaded gun in his bedroom. In the same room, the officers also discover evidence of drug possession and use, illegal firearms, and money, suggesting possibility of money laundering. The suspect inquires why he is being arrested, and if he should call a lawyer. The officers do not respond to his questions. Instead, they ask him if there “were more” (incriminating evidence) to find in the house. The suspect answers in the affirmative and leads the officers to a cache of shoe boxes containing more drugs (cocaine and marijuana). It is after this discovery that one of the officers eventually reads the suspect his Miranda warnings.
Legal Issues Raised by the Case
The case raises two major issues in criminal justice proceedings. The first is whether self-incriminating statements obtained from individuals in police custody are admissible against them in criminal trial, when such statements are obtained without knowledge that such statements will be used against them in a court of law. The suspect is considered to be in police custody because his freedom was limited the moment he was handcuffed. The second issue is whether incriminating evidence provided by a suspect prior to a Miranda warning is admissible in court.
Analysis
The precedent for reading a suspect his or her rights prior to arrest was established in the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966. In Miranda, a rape suspect was identified by his victim, and in subsequent interrogations, made self-incriminating statements without legal counsel. The Supreme Court reversed the initial conviction of the defendant on the basis that the arresting officers had not followed due procedures in handling the accused. Specifically, the accused was not made aware of his right to remain silence and to have a lawyer present during questioning. On behalf of the majority ruling, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that:
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him (U.S. Supreme Court, 1969).
This ruling applies to the present case in both instances. The arresting officers question the suspect without first informing him that anything he says from the point of arrest onwards will be used as evidence against him in court. Secondly, the officers did not advise the suspect that he had a right to a lawyer, despite the suspect inquiring of the same.
From the facts of the case, it is evident that the suspect was not fully aware of the reasons he was being arrested. This view is supported by his asking one of the officers “Why are you picking on me?” If the officers had explained his situation to him, then he might not have provided self-incriminating evidence unwittingly. According to Miranda, self-incriminating evidence obtained from a suspect in custody, and without knowledge of his or her rights, is not admissible. These rights pertain to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment protects suspects from being coerced to be witnesses against themselves, such as by making self-incriminating statements (Brezina, 2011). The Sixth Amendment guarantees suspects a right to legal counsel prior to and during questioning. With respect to the Fifth Amendment, it is arguable that the suspect provided self-incriminating information voluntarily, without any coercion from the arresting officers. However, admissibility is objected on the ground that the officers violated the Sixth Amendment by not informing the suspect his right to legal counsel (Shea, 2011). It is worth of note that the officers did not respond to the suspect’s query whether he should call his cousin “Vinny the Lawyer.” On the basis of these arguments, the court should suppress self-incriminating statements made by the suspect.
With respect to the discovered cache of illegal possessions (weapons and drugs), they are admissible to the extent that they were recovered after a legal search, noting that the officers had a valid search warrant.
It is curious to note, however, that there were a number of people within the house, and the police officers did not bother to ascertain whether all the recovered items belonged to the suspect. It is remarkable that the officers only asked the suspect whether there was anything they needed to be aware of. In this case, it is arguable that the suspect simply informed the officers that there was a gun in the master bedroom, without...