The Miranda warning has been in effect for 42 years now. It was enacted specifically to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. It's always been a controversial ruling but one that most attorneys and constitutional law experts hail as a warning that strengthens the application of the document in every day life.
However, that is not to say there are problems with it. For instance, when Miranda was instituted, the U.S. Supreme Court did not provide the precise language law enforcement officals must use before an interrogation. This has led to all sort of disputes and legal wrangling in the courts.
Last month, the Florida Supreme Court heard a case concerning Miranda. The case in question involved a firearm conviction and subsequent 10-year prison sentence being overturned because the police did not explicitly inform the suspect that he could consult a lawyer before AND during questioning. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the man's Fifth Amendment rights were violated and upheld the lower court's decision to overturn the conviction.
This is not only a significant victory for supporters of Miranda but also those whose constitutional rights have been trampled due to imprecise, inaccurate, sloppy interpretation of the Miranda warning.
While the Supreme Court ruling is a positive step in the right direction, a conviction can still be obtained even when one's Miranda rights are not provided. A famous example is the John Couey case. Couey's confession was eventually thrown out but he was still convicted and received the death penalty for murdering a minor.
Leave a comment