you have the right to remain silent (10. 805)

Emerging from movement for legal aid for defendants supported by LBJ’s Great Society programmes which provided for counsel during the interrogation process after booking as a safeguard for practises that many viewed as brutal and coercive, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Miranda v Arizona on this day in 1966 that renders inadmissible self-incriminating statements obtained without the informed consent of the apprehended of their rights to legal representation. Whereas the protections of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution was customarily understood as a protection against compelled admittance of guilt under duress and contempt in a courtroom setting (I plead the 5th), the ruling signalled a shift in law enforcement practises—with a protocol issued by the Court, and precincts adopting a standard of “reading rights” or “Mirandizing,” which some regarded as soft on crime and an undue administrative burden. The original case from 1963 involved a suspect linked circumstantially to a particularly heinous kidnapping and rape, Ernesto Miranda signing a typewritten confession that he did “hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, without threats, coercion or the promise of immunity and with knowledge of my legal rights—understanding any statement I make may be used against me”—expect that at no time was the suspect told of his right to legal counsel nor to remain refuse to speak with police, making his confession involuntary. The conviction overturned, Miranda was sentenced during a retrial and eventually paroled in 1972 and made a modest living as a celebrity, autographing Miranda cards, the script given to arresting officers.