49.
"Miranda" Rights and the Fifth
Amendment”
United States Supreme Court
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, (1966)
No. 759
Argued: Decided: June 13, 1966
We Thee continue abused (Negro) Race
2015-2099, “Affirm”, “State”, and “declare” legally,
Appearance Respectfully before
his/her “World Honorable Presiding “Justices”, To the Honorable “World Court of
Justice” The Hague
Upon which
We Thee continue abused (Negro) Race, affirm, state and fully declare
all allegation, contention, disputes, disputation, argument, conflict and
disharmony, fully cause of action as follows:
Pro Se “Slave Negro” (Petitioner) “Louis Charles Hamilton
II (USN) herein, on behalf on every “Negro” race since DNA was established upon
the official date of August 20th 1619 in the abduction of a entire
(Negro) race from a free sovereign to stand forever more as “property” pursuant
to forever more
“Dred Scott” Vs.
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) Deepest Dark Ages Defendant “United States of
America” et al 1000% continual under hand dealing in “Whole Sale” destruction
of their very own continual
“White
Only” rules of governing laws, pursuant to erasing 4th 5th
6th 13th 14th and 15th Amendment of
the “United States of America” “White Only” constitution,
Wanted
and still at Large Deep Dark Ages Defendant “United States of America”, being 1000%
officially requested respectful directed by his/her Honorable World Court
Justices” before the witness of the
“Entire” International Community of “Planet
Earth” advising still at Large Criminal “Deepest Dark Ages Defendant “United States of America”
et al, herein to pay direct 1000% attention to their very own rules of
governing “criminal laws” pursuant to
"Miranda" Rights and
the Fifth Amendment”
You Deepest Dark Ages Defendant “United States of America” et
al herein 1000% have the right to remain silent.
Anything you Deepest Dark Ages Defendant “United
States of America” et al herein 1000% say can and will be used against you in a court of law
before The Honorable World Court Justices” in reply and response thereof your
defense
You Deepest Dark Ages Defendant “United States of America” et
al herein 1000% have the right to a “Your” (Billion) Dollar an hour “Attorney Wizard Oz.
Esq.” of your “extreme choice” and.
If Deepest Dark Ages Defendant “United States of America” et
al herein 1000% you cannot afford an court attorney,
One will be appointed “direct” by His/her Honorable “World
Court Justices” of The Hague just for
you :
)
United States Supreme Court
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, (1966)
No. 759
Argued:
Decided: June 13, 1966
Together with No. 760, Vignera v. New York, on
certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York and No. 761, Westover v. United
States, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, both argued
February 28 - March 1, 1966; and No. 584, California v. Stewart,
on certiorari to the Supreme Court of California, argued February 28 - March 2,
1966.
In each of these cases the defendant while in police custody was
questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room
in which he was cut off from the outside world.
None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of
his rights at the outset of the interrogation process.
In all four cases the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in
three of them signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials.
All defendants were
convicted and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal.
Held:
1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's
privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.
(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado
interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to
undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive
measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings,
no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free
choice. Pp. 445-458.
(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had
a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our
adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain
silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own
will," during a period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 436, 437] as well as in the courts or during
the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.
(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , stressed
the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation
conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466.
(d) In the absence of other effective measures the following
procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: The
person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has
the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him
in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a
lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is
indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.
(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during
questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if
he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an
attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.
(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence
of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government
to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right
to counsel. P. 475.
(g) Where the individual answers some questions during in custody
interrogation he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to
remain silent thereafter. Pp. 475-476.
(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the
absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of
any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant. Pp. 476-477.
2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for
the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an
undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by
the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions.
Pp. 479-491.
3. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under
circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the
privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 491-499.
No comments:
Post a Comment