You have the right to…

1. You have the right to…

2. Gideon v. Wainwright & Miranda v. Arizona Essential Question: How did the Gideon and Miranda rulings impact criminal procedure in the United States?

3. American Law The Gideon and Miranda Rulings

4. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

5. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Video

6. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) “Not only these precedents, but also reason and reflection, require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.” - Gideon v. Wainwright Majority Opinion (written by Justice Hugo Black)

8. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

9. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) “To summarize, we hold that, when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to [p479] protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.” - Miranda v. Arizona Majority Opinion (written by Chief Justice Earl Warren)

10. For Adults For Juveniles

11. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Video

12. Michigan v. Moseley (1975) Question Presented: Does the re-initiation of interrogation after a suspect has invoked his right to silence under Miranda v. Arizona violate the suspect’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to silence and the presence of counsel? Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines.

13. Michigan v. Moseley (1975) Question Presented: Does the re-initiation of interrogation after a suspect has invoked his right to silence under Miranda v. Arizona violate the suspect’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to silence and the presence of counsel? Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines. According to the U.S. Supreme Court…In a 6 to 2 ruling the Court held that the Miranda rule, which requires an immediate halt to questioning if the individual in custody wishes not to speak, does not clearly establish the circumstances under which questioning may be resumed. The Court held that Miranda only required that the suspect’s right to refuse to answer questions be honored. In this case, the Court held that Mosley’s invocation of his right to silence had been honored because the interrogation ceased as soon as he stated he did not wish to continue, he was read his rights again before interrogation was re-initiated, and a significant amount of time passed between the two interrogations. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-653

14. Brewer v. Williams (1977) Question Presented: Was the conversation between police officers and the defendant an interrogation that violated the defendant’s right to counsel? Did Williams waive his right to counsel when he took officers to the girl’s body? Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines.

15. Brewer v. Williams (1977) Question Presented: Was the conversation between police officers and the defendant an interrogation that violated the defendant’s right to counsel? Did Williams waive his right to counsel when he took officers to the girl’s body? Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines. According to the U.S. Supreme Court...In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Court held that Robert Williams was denied his right to counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The police officer’s Christian Burial Speech was equivalent to an interrogation without the assistance of counsel. The confession was invalid, and the conviction was overturned. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/74-1263

16. Nix v. Williams (1984) Question Presented: Was the victim’s body the fruit of an illegally-obtained confession? If so, should it be suppressed per the exclusionary rule? Explain. Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines.

17. Nix v. Williams (1984) Question Presented: Was the victim’s body the fruit of an illegally-obtained confession? If so, should it be suppressed per the exclusionary rule? Explain. Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines. According to the U.S. Supreme Court...In a 7 to 2 ruling, the Court applied the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule. “The evidence clearly shows that the searchers were approaching the actual location of the body, that the search would have been resumed had respondent not led the police to the body, and that the body inevitably would have been found.” https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1651

18. Oregon v. Elstad (1985) Question Presented: Was Elstad's written confession made invalid by the failure of the officers to administer Miranda warnings at his home? Explain. Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines.

19. Oregon v. Elstad (1985) Question Presented: Was Elstad's written confession made invalid by the failure of the officers to administer Miranda warnings at his home? Explain. Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines. According to the U.S. Supreme Court... In a 6 to 3 ruling, the Court held that while Miranda required that unwarned admissions must be suppressed, subsequent statements, if made knowingly and voluntarily, need not be. Elstad’s oral confession was suppressed, but his written confession was valid. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-773

20. Colorado v. Connelly (1986) Question Presented: Did the taking of Connelly's statements as evidence violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?. Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines.

21. Colorado v. Connelly (1986) Question Presented: Did the taking of Connelly's statements as evidence violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?. Respond to “In My Opinion…” in 3 to 5 lines. According to the U.S. Supreme Court...In a 7 to 2 ruling, The Court held that Connelly's statements did not involve any element of governmental coercion, therefore, no violation of the Due Process Clause occurred. The Court noted that "Miranda protects defendants against government coercion leading them to surrender rights protected by the Fifth Amendment; it goes no further than that." https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/85-660

22. Summarizer: Word SplashUse each of the words below in sentence and paragraph form. Underline each word as you use it. Miranda v. Arizona U.S. Supreme Court Arrest Intelligent Waiver Right to Remain Silent Exclusionary Rule Interrogate Right to Counsel

23. Summarizer: Word Splash Due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, after the police make an arrest, they are required to inform the accused of his right to remain silent and right to counsel prior to custodial interrogation. If the accused chooses to speak to the police, he must make an intelligent waiver of his Miranda Rights. Otherwise, any statements he makes will not be permitted to be used as evidence due to the exclusionary rule.