by Mariana Prandi, Translator and Lawyer
In the U.S., the police must inform those who have been arrested that they are not required to confess. The detainees are told that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say can be used against them. They also have the right to call a lawyer and are asked if they understood the warning. They may waive these rights voluntarily, as long as they know what is involved.
The Miranda Warning is also called the «Miranda ruling» or «Miranda rights.» It is part of a routine procedure to protect the right of defendants not to testify against themselves. It originated as a consequence of a criminal act in which the accused confessed without knowing that he had the option not to do so.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was originally convicted of kidnapping, rape and armed robbery by his own confession during police interrogation. The Supreme Court overturned the initial conviction because Miranda failed to properly defend himself by not knowing his rights, in this case, his right not to confess.
The crime took place in Arizona in the early morning hours of March 3, 1963, when Lois Ann Jamenson was abducted on her way home from work by a man in a green car. A week later, Lois Ann’s brother-in-law saw a green car near the house and gave the license plate number to the police. Miranda was charged, and he confessed.
The Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona on June 13, 1966. It is the landmark case where the constitutional right against self-incrimination, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is protected.
The Fifth Amendment was enacted to protect individuals against abuse of state authority. The original constitution did not contain articles protecting the rights of individuals in relation to the state. That is why in 1791 the «Bill of Rights» was adopted, comprising the first ten amendments, i.e., the express declaration of the rights of citizens.
The amendments protect, among others, freedom of speech, press, religion and, one of the most controversial, the right to bear arms.
As for their influence on language, in police language there is the verb «mirandize» to refer to complying with the reading of the Miranda warning and the phrase «I take the fifth», when someone does not want to talk about something because it would imply confessing something damaging against them.
As an interesting fact, it can be said that the Miranda warning and the amendments to the Constitution are so well known in U.S. popular culture that it is very common to find them in scenes of movies and series, every time a character is taken into custody.
For example, in the 1993 movie «A Bronx Tale«, directed by Robert de Niro, in a neighborhood under the influence of gangsters, a boy goes to confession and the priest asks him if he knows «the fifth», obviously referring to the fifth commandment: «Thou shalt not kill». The boy mentions the right against self incrimination, confusing it with the fifth amendment.
Regarding the criminal act that originated the warning, the Supreme Court ruling did not mean that Miranda was innocent, but that convicting him for the mere confession was a violation of due process.
When Miranda was retried in 1967, in a process which did not include the confession but did include sufficient evidence, Miranda was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He was paroled after 11 years.
Miranda was stabbed to death in a bar fight in 1976 at the age of 34. Ironically, what had set him free the first time, caused his murder to go unpunished: the person suspected of handing the knife to the murderer invoked the Miranda warning to avoid testifying against himself and was free after a few hours. The actual killer fled and was never found.
