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