You Have the Right to Know: Miranda v. Arizona скачать в хорошем качестве

You Have the Right to Know: Miranda v. Arizona

PODCAST: "Miranda v. Arizona" (1966) The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case "Miranda v. Arizona", decided in 1966, fundamentally reshaped American criminal procedure by establishing what are now known as "Miranda rights." The case centered on Ernesto Miranda, a Phoenix man arrested in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. After two hours of police interrogation, Miranda confessed—without having been informed of his right to remain silent or to consult an attorney. That confession became the key piece of evidence used to convict him. Miranda's attorneys appealed, arguing that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which bundled it with several similar cases addressing the same issue: whether confessions made without informing suspects of their constitutional rights were admissible in court. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE PODCASTS ON CRIMINAL LAW In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the prosecution could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless it could demonstrate that procedural safeguards were used to protect the suspect’s rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, held that the inherently coercive nature of in-custody police questioning violated the Fifth Amendment unless suspects were explicitly told they had the right to remain silent, that anything they said could be used against them, and that they had the right to an attorney—either retained or appointed. Before "Miranda", police were not constitutionally required to inform suspects of these rights. Confessions, even those obtained under intense pressure, were often used in court as long as they were not "involuntarily" made under "totality of the circumstances" tests. This often led to unfair and inconsistent results. "Miranda" significantly changed policing. Law enforcement officers were now obligated to deliver a "Miranda warning" during custodial interrogations. While controversial at first—critics feared criminals would stop confessing—it ultimately became routine and widely accepted in criminal justice practice. The decision empowered suspects, reinforced constitutional protections, and introduced greater accountability into the criminal justice process. Today, the Miranda warning is not only a procedural safeguard—it’s a cultural touchstone, instantly recognizable from films and television, reminding Americans that even under arrest, their rights remain intact. #miranda #mirandavarizona #mirandawarnings #ernestomiranda