Miranda v. Arizona
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for rape in 1963. Later, he confessed to robbery and attempted rape while being interrogated by the police. During the trial, his confession was the only form of evidence presented by the prosecutors. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20–30 years incarceration for each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Alvin Moore, Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer, appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which confirmed the trial court’s decision because Miranda did not specifically request counsel. However, the US Supreme Court overruled the decision based on violation of the fifth (right against self-incrimination) amendment. Specifically, the court ruled that any statement by a criminal suspect stemming from a custodial police interrogation would be presumed involuntary and inadmissible unless police detectives provided the suspect with four warnings to remind the defendant of his or her constitutional rights. These...
References and Readings
- Grisso, T. (1998). Assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights: Manual and materials. Sarasota: Professional Resources Press.Google Scholar
- Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
- Oberlander, L. B., Goldstein, N. E., & Goldstein, A. M. (2003). Competence to confess. In A. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 11. Forensic psychology. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar