LOCATION: Great Sioux Indian Reservation
DOCKET NO.: 79-5386
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: Louisiana Supreme Court
CITATION: 444 US 469 (1980)
DECIDED: Jan 21, 1980
Facts of the case
This case study once again confirmed the need to apply the Miranda rule in practice and also the legal consequences of its not being used. The rule of Miranda was introduced by the decision of the US Supreme Court in 1966 with the aim of securing the right not to testify against oneself (nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare). Today, failure to comply with this requirement leads to the cancellation of information received from the suspect. It arose because of the offender, to whom the police officers did not explain his right to refuse to testify and the Supreme Court found it necessary to cancel the conviction decision based on apparently unreliable testimonies.Since then, any information received from a detainee during the interrogation before his rights were read to him can not be considered admissible evidence.
As part of this case brief, the court decided that the prisoner did not waive his powers under this law, for this reason, all his testimonies should be taken into account by the court. The defendant in the case was accused of robbery and sentenced to 65 years imprisonment, but at a certain stage of the process, he began to assert that he was not aware of his rights properly. The policeman who conducted the detention managed to prove the lawful execution of this procedure.Thus, the practice of repeating the experience of Ernesto Miranda becomes a precedent for criminal law, but if this rule was still observed, it can be easily proven in court.