The Courts and

the Constitution
Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966)
TM

If you were responsible for

selecting all of the judges in
Nevada, what would you look
for?
Knowledge
Skills
Disposition
Other qualities

TM

Job Qualifications
What is a job qualification?
Do the qualifications in Article I and II refer to
specific skills or job training?
Should members of Executive and Legislative
branches possess certain job skills? What kind?

How are judges different

from other elected officials
such as legislators?

TM

 Should judges be influenced by

political pressures when deciding a
case?
Would you want a judge to make a
decision based on the law or how the
public might react to the decision?
Should judges do what is legally right
or should they do what is popular?
TM

Checks on Judges
Judges must follow:
The Constitution
Statutes (laws passed by the legislative
branch)
Rules
Higher court decisions (precedent)

TM

*All decisions of the judicial branch may be reviewed

by a higher court*

So, a judge cannot decide

a case based on how he
or she feels about an
issue.
TM

 If a judge does not follow the existing

law but decides a case based only on
how he or she feels about the issue,
the decision is subject to review by
an appellate court.
All courts are subject to review by a
higher court except for the highest
court in the country: the Supreme
Court of the United States.
TM

Today, you will be a justice

on the United States
Supreme Court and decide a
real case involving the
United States Constitution.

TM

But first
You need to know about the
Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
TM

The Fifth Amendment

No person . . . shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself; nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of
law . . . .
TM

The Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment
. . . Nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law . . . .

TM

Constitutional Questions
1. What does it mean to be
compelled to be a witness
against yourself?

TM

Constitutional Questions
What does it mean to be compelled to
be a witness against yourself?
Compelled: To cause an action by force or
overwhelming pressure
Witness: Someone that gives evidence,
specifically, someone who testifies in a cause or
before a judicial tribunal
*Merriam Websters Dictionary

TM

Constitutional Questions
2. What does due process
mean?

TM

Constitutional Questions
What does due process mean?
The conduct of legal proceedings according to
established rules and principles for the protection
and enforcement of the rights of individuals.
Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have a
Due Process Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment
specifically applies to actions of the states, rather
than the federal government.
*Blacks Law Dictionary

TM

Due Process & confessions: Brown v.

Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
Three African-American men were charged
with the murder of a white man in Mississippi
in 1934.
The only evidence that the defendants
murdered the victim were confessions that the
police obtained from the defendants after they
were tortured.
Officers whipped two of the defendants with a belt buckle
and told them that the beatings would continue until they
confessed.
After another defendant told the officers he was innocent,
they hung him up by his neck from a tree, released him,
TM

Due Process & confessions: Brown v.

Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
After a one-day trial, the defendants were
convicted of murder on the basis of these
confessions and they were sentenced to
death.
The defendants appealed to the
Mississippi Supreme Court, which
affirmed the convictions.

TM

Due Process & confessions: Brown v.

Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
However, a unanimous United States Supreme
Court reversed the convictions. The Court
held:

TM

Confessions obtained by physical torture violate

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and cannot be used during trial.
A confession can only be used during trial against
the speaker if it was freely and voluntarily given.
The rack and torture chamber may not be
substituted for the witness stand. The state may
not permit an accused to be hurried to conviction
under mob dominationwhere the whole
proceeding is but a maskwithout supplying

Due Process & confessions: Chambers

v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
After an elderly man was robbed and murdered in
Pompano Beach, Florida, police arrested between 25
and 40 African American men.
The suspects were held in the Broward County jail for
a week, where they were questioned individually by
groups of officers and prosecutors.
At one point, some suspects were transported to
Miami due to concerns about a local mob seeking
vigilante justice.
TM

Due Process & confessions: Chambers

v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
None of the suspects were allowed to speak to
friends, family, or attorneys, nor was anyone formally
charged with a crime.
After one week of interrogation, which included
questioning that lasted all night, four defendants
confessed.
The defendants were convicted based on these
confessions and sentenced to death.

TM

Due Process & confessions: Chambers

v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
The four defendants appealed, but the Florida
Supreme Court concluded that the confessions were
voluntary and affirmed the convictions and
sentences.
The United States Supreme Court unanimously
reversed the convictions. The Supreme Court held
that confessions obtained under duress from
prolonged questioning, without access to lawyers or
family, violated the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
TM

Due Process & confessions:

Cicenia v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504
(1958)
Officers suspected Mr. Cicenia of a robbery and murder of a
convenience store clerk. They could not find him at his house,
but left him a message that asked him to come to the police
station the next day.
Cicenia spoke to a lawyer, who told him to report to the
station. He arrived at 9 AM with his family, and officers spoke
with him alone until 9:30 PM that night.
During questioning, both Cicenia and his lawyer asked to
speak to each other, but officers denied the requests.
At 9:30 PM, Cicenia confessed to the murder.
TM

Due Process & confessions:

Cicenia v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504
(1958)
During trial, Cicenia asked the court not to
admit his confession because he claimed it
was coerced. The trial court denied the
request.
Cicenia was convicted for the murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment with hard
labor.

TM

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the

confession was properly admitted and
affirmed his conviction. Cicenia appealed to
the United States Supreme Court.

Due Process & confessions:

Cicenia v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504
(1958)
The United States Supreme Court also upheld
the conviction and determined that none of
Cicenias rights were violated.
The Supreme Court expressed concern that
requiring the state officers to honor Cicenias
requests for his attorney during questioning
would undermine police investigations.

TM

Todays Case

Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436
(1966)
TM

The facts of Miranda v. Arizona*

Ernesto Miranda, who had a long criminal history,
was arrested for kidnapping and rape.
After a line-up, police interrogated Miranda for two
hours. He subsequently wrote and signed a
confession. The confession included a statement
that he was aware of his right against selfincrimination.
But while he was in police custody, officers never told
Miranda of his right against self-incrimination under
the Fifth Amendment, or his right to an attorney
under the Sixth Amendment.
*Miranda v. Arizona actually involved four cases consolidated before the U.S.
TM

The facts of Miranda v. Arizona

During trial, Miranda asked the court to exclude his
confession. The court denied the request, and the jury
heard the confession.
Miranda was convicted for kidnapping and rape, and
sentenced to 20 to 30 years for each conviction.
He lost his appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, which
held that the confession was not unconstitutionally
obtained. The appellate court noted that Miranda should
have known his rights because he had been arrested
many times before. He never asked to speak to an
attorney during this police interrogation.
Miranda now appeals his case to the United States
Supreme Court.
TM

Now you are a Justice on the

U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is the question before

the Court

TM

statements made by a
person who is in police
custody and subject to
police questioning be used
against that person during
trial if that person is not told
of his or her constitutional
rights?

TM

Incriminating Statements
Individually answer the question Yes or
No based on the facts of the case, the
constitution, and case precedent.
Consider the facts of Brown v. Mississippi,
Chambers v. Florida, and Cicenia v. La Gay. Ask
yourself how the facts of those cases are similar
to, or different from, the facts involving
Miranda.
Give 3 reasons for your answer in writing.
TM

Incriminating Statements
If you answer yes you are deciding
for the State of Arizona
If you answer no you are deciding
for Miranda

TM

Incriminating Statements
Form groups of 5.
Choose a Chief Justice, who maintains order.
Poll the Justices. How did each one of you
answer the question and why?
Try to reach a unanimous decision.
You have 10 minutes to discuss the
constitutional question presented, then take
a final poll.
TM

Incriminating Statements
After each Court decides:
Bring the Chief Justices to the front of
the room to report on the decision of
each group.
Tally the results and announce the
final decision.
TM

statements made by a
person who is in police
custody and subject to
police questioning be used
against that person during
trial if that person is not told
of his or her constitutional
rights?

TM

What did the real U.S.

Supreme Court say and
why?

TM

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

(1966)
The United States Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5
to 4 that the Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination extends beyond the courtroom and
applies to all people in all settings in which their
freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way.
Thus, in situations that involve custodial
interrogation by the police, the prosecutor can only
use incriminating statements by the defendant where
proper procedural safeguards were used to protect
against compelled confessions.
TM

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

(1966)
These proper procedural safeguards are
today known as the Miranda warnings. They
include:
The right to remain silent.
Advising the suspect that anything said or done may be
used against him or her in court.
The right to an attorney before speaking with the police,
and to have an attorney present during questioning.
The right to have an attorney appointed for you, if the
suspect cannot afford one.
TM

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

(1966)
Because Miranda was not aware of his rights
under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments when
he confessed, the confession was held to be
inadmissible against him in court.
Today, police officers must administer the
Miranda rights before placing a suspect in
custody and asking questions.
Miranda, along with a prior case Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S.
478 (1964), overruled the holding of Cicenia v. La Gay.
TM

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

(1966)
4 Justices dissented from the majority
opinionJustices Clark, Harlan, White, and
Stewart.
In the dissent most remembered by historians
and lawyers, Justice Harlan expressed concern
that the bright-line rule would hamper
legitimate police investigations and would not
actually prevent police abuse or coercive
interrogations.
TM