The Miranda Rights: Are They Really Rights?

The case of North Carolina v. Butler caused a lot of controversy around the question of Butler waiving his Miranda rights when he was arrested in 1979. Judging from the case at hand, I believe the question should be restated as, "did Defendant Butler waive one or a part of his Miranda rights?" The most crucial part to the Miranda rights which involves a defendant's right to remain silent, that anything said can and will be used against them in a court of law, the right to consult with an attorney and have counsel present while being interrogated and the right to an appointed lawyer to represent the defendant if they are found to be destitute. To understand if this defendant waived his rights, one must understand when this law was first originated.

Miranda rights first came into existence in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, when the Supreme Court upheld that people being interrogated while in police custody must first be informed in clear terms the rights that the Miranda rights entail. If police fail to do any of the above, they violate the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment right allows one not to make any self-incriminating statements against oneself. (Amar)

Butler did a couple of things correctly and incorrectly. First, remaining silent when he was advised of his right to counsel and never even requested counsel throughout his whole interrogation would be fair enough to say that he did not voluntarily waive his rights, but at the same time, he did not utilize his rights. There has been enough experience in the criminal justice system to say that in some cases, when one is being interrogated by the police, the accused can get somewhat intimidated by the authoritative figure.

With that said, the case also states that Butler read an advice-of-rights form in which he read and stated that he understood his rights. He had enough time to have had eased a little after reading these rights. He knew enough not to sign any papers, as he clearly stated that he was not going to sign anything, particularly a waiver provision. He did waive his right to silence by talking to the police and he waived his right to counsel by not asking for an attorney to be present there with him. (Mirfield)

Certain cases that depended on the Miranda rights and the Fifth Amendment are sometimes utilized to contrast similarities with the Butler case. The only difference with regards to the Butler case is that he violated himself by reading the advice-of-rights form and then speaking to the police. In a New York Court of Appeals case back in 1990, The People and C., Respondent v. Elias Barrientos Sirno, Appellant, held some similarities in terms of argument of whether or not the defendant had indeed waived his rights upon arrest. (Cornell Law)

Appellant Sirno was arrested and during his arrest, he was given his Miranda rights. Acting in a non-responsive answer, he asked to see the rights in Spanish. He proceeded to check "yes" next to each question the Miranda rights consists of and yet and still, gave his statement without counsel present. The judge in this case dissented stating that the appellant knew enough to ask in English for his rights written in Spanish. Although an affirmative answer by the appellant was not absolute grounds to say that he waived all of his rights, he knew enough to read and answer them and give a statement.

The question I would have to ask is, is it fair for the Fifth Amendment to make justifications for those in situations such as Sirno's and Butler's? I would have to say it really does not. The Fifth Amendment clearly states, in accordance with the Miranda rights, that a person has the right to remain silent. (US Constitution) Yes, it does state this, but at the same time, a person is not necessarily guilty just because they are in fact remaining silent.

In the cases of Butler and Sirno, both were silent at first, one because he read his rights and signed a form, the other because he read his rights in another language and signed it, too. Both talked. Both knew that they had the right to remain silent. The fact that they both could read this statement and sign it, portrayed that they knew what they were doing. But, what about pressure? What if one is pressured to talk and does so even after hearing his or her rights? What if one signs an affidavit when one is promised a benefit to get out of the whole interrogation such as if they sign a statement they can leave or they can go home if they talk? What if the police never tell you that they can re-arrest a person once they do walk out the door because a new search warrant has been issued and their statement is irrelevant? Are the police incriminating these gestures if you will, just because they want to solve a case? Does the Fifth Amendment and the Miranda rights discriminate in some cases when it comes to age or gender?

In the case of Dyer v. Hall (Dyer was then a Lieutenant in the National Guard in 2004), she alleged that a Lt. Michael Hall had raped her in a barracks after she planned to meet some friends one night at the officers' club. In fact, she was raped twice. (Dalton) When Lt. Jennifer Dyer was held in seclusion for three days and read her Miranda rights, did she learn that she was being held for filing a false report. She was then forced to write another lengthy statement claiming that she had been unfaithful to her fiancé, so the rape claim would not be valid.

Does this situation justify for Lt. Dyer's experience in terms of Miranda rights? She was manipulated yes, but at the same time, should she have asked for an attorney? I believe she should have despite the consequences. In cases such as these, the wrong side of the law tends to get away with these situations. This incident left Lt. Dyer traumatized and the defendant was acquitted of all charges. (Dalton) In agreement, one would say that she should not have written a lengthy statement that justified the rape as not being so. She should have asked for counsel despite being in a destitute area, forced to go on leave and then get slammed with an AWOL charge. It is hard to tell if this person, Lt. Dyer would actually make this situation up, but judging from the fact that she was forced to create a false statement just to alleviate some of the pressure and the trauma she faced when she went to the hospital proves that the Fifth Amendment does not make exceptions to any part of the clause for any one human being who is pursuing a life of happiness and at the same time, serving their beloved country.

In the matter of age, there are many young people who commit crimes, more so in the world today than ever. In the Central Park jogger case in 1989, a young woman was jogging and minding her own business when five teenagers, aged fourteen to sixteen at the time allegedly beat and raped the jogger. After being caught by the police and read their rights and interrogated for hours, the teens were videotaped stating their confession of committing these crimes. (Cassel) Being videotaped was enough to scare any teenager if all eyes are watching you, especially when one is a minority. This case was overturned after thirteen years the four of the five youths spent in prison while another served a little over six. How does the Miranda rights justify this case? It certainly did not, because these rights were used against them. Using terms such as attorney or counsel would scare anybody. Does the Fifth Amendment justify the law to state that after one is read their rights they are to incriminate them by videotaping them and violate their civil rights? No, it does not state that either, but it does say that what a person says can and will be used against them. In this case, the videotaping was utilized to uphold a confession to coincide with the Miranda rights. These young kids tried to overturn their confession, but was given jail time instead due to their confessions and lack of legal counsel.

What about age, why are the Miranda rights not alleviated in clearer terms for a deemed juvenile delinquent? Michael Crowe was fourteen at the time when he was charged with the murder of his younger sister. (Bell) The police interrogated him for forty-eight hours and like the Central Park jogger case, videotaped him as well. Even after reading the Miranda rights, the youth was found on tape as saying, "I am only stating this because it is what you want to hear." How was this fourteen year-old kid supposed to know that this important statement would be used against him in a court of law? Just the pressure of being in a police station for two days in a row and the grief over his sister's death would have only pressured this youngster to state that he in fact killed his sister. DNA linked the killer to someone else and not Michael Crowe.

In both of the above cases, the Miranda rights were improperly used. If it were not for the science and advancement of DNA, these kids would still be in jail. In my opinion, in Butler's case, he should have asked for more clarification of what these rights clearly meant. In a tough situation such as Butler's, prior record and horrendous crimes being charged against him, it is only fair to say that he used poor judgment of orally giving a statement even though he refused to sign a statement. Citizens of the US need to realize what these rights mean, especially the last part, "You have the right to an attorney." Somewhere along the line, people need to know that an attorney is going to come around and assist with getting them out of the legal trouble they are facing in the first place. Of course the Fifth Amendment cannot and will not be rewritten, but it should give some justification to those that are young, disabled, illiterate, or ineffectual when it comes to understanding what their Miranda rights are upon arrest. But no matter what your race, gender or age is, the Fifth Amendment lets one know up front, that America is not going to stand for changing any of its statements from the US Constitution especially after it gives everyone the equal right of just being born here on pure US soil: freedom.

Works Cited:

Amar, Akhil Reed. The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles. Yale University Press, 1998.

Mirfield, Peter. Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence. Oxford University Press, 1997. Cornell Law Legal Information Institute. New York Court of Appeals. Internet http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/search/display.html?terms=Miranda&url=/nyctap/I90_0209.htmDalton, Jack. "The Continued Plight of 1st LT Jennifer Dyer: Raped, then Raped Again." Uncommon Thought Journal. 2004. Internet http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2004/12/16/the_continued_plight_of_1st_lt_jennifer_dyer_raped_then_raped_again.php 2004Cassel, Elaine. "The False Confessions in the Central Park Jogger Case: How They Happened, and How To Stop Similar Injustices from Happening Again." FindLaw's Writ. 2002. Internet http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20021217.htmlBell, Rachael. "Coerced false confessions during interrogations. Crime Library. 2007 Internet http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/6.html