Constitutional issues
The ultimate question was whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary procedures which assure that the individual is granted his privileges under the Fifth Amendment.
-Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
-Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial
-Whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary
-Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
-Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial
-Whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary
Arguments
Petitioner (Ernesto A. Miranda):
Flynn and Frank submitted their argument stating that Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the Phoenix Police Department. John Flynn and John Paul Frank for stated that Miranda had not been advised of his right to remain silent when he had been arrested and questioned, adding the Fifth Amendment argument to his case. Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule (evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court) and the Gideon rule (all felony defendants have the right to an attorney) in prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty, and he deserved a new trial. Flynn further contended that an emotionally disturbed man like Miranda, who had a limited education, should not be expected to know his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
Respondent (The State of Arizona):
Gary Nelson spoke for the people of Arizona, arguing that this was not a Fifth Amendment issue but just an attempt to expand the Sixth Amendment Escobedo decision. Nelson argued that Miranda's rights had not been violated, because he argued Miranda signed the confession willingly. Thus, the prosecution was proper, the conviction was based on Arizona law, the imprisonment was just, and the Supreme Court should uphold his conviction. Nelson urged the justices to clarify their position, but not to push the limits of Escobedo too far. He then told the court that forcing police to advise suspects of their rights would seriously obstruct public safety.
Flynn and Frank submitted their argument stating that Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the Phoenix Police Department. John Flynn and John Paul Frank for stated that Miranda had not been advised of his right to remain silent when he had been arrested and questioned, adding the Fifth Amendment argument to his case. Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule (evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court) and the Gideon rule (all felony defendants have the right to an attorney) in prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty, and he deserved a new trial. Flynn further contended that an emotionally disturbed man like Miranda, who had a limited education, should not be expected to know his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
Respondent (The State of Arizona):
Gary Nelson spoke for the people of Arizona, arguing that this was not a Fifth Amendment issue but just an attempt to expand the Sixth Amendment Escobedo decision. Nelson argued that Miranda's rights had not been violated, because he argued Miranda signed the confession willingly. Thus, the prosecution was proper, the conviction was based on Arizona law, the imprisonment was just, and the Supreme Court should uphold his conviction. Nelson urged the justices to clarify their position, but not to push the limits of Escobedo too far. He then told the court that forcing police to advise suspects of their rights would seriously obstruct public safety.
Questions Posed by the JuStices
-Is there a right to a lawyer?
-Are these all the panoply of rights guaranteed to the defendant in a criminal trial?
-What would a lawyer advise Miranda that his rights were?
-Is it your position that we should overrule Escobedo?
-Does the 5th Amendment protect every person, or just some persons? I am not talking about in practical effect; I am talking about what the Amendment is supposed to do.
-Would literacy or illiteracy have anything to do with it if they compelled him to testify, whatever comes within the scope of that?
-Is there any claim in this case that this confession was compelled/involuntary?
-Do you claim that Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights were violated?
-Does the record shows that Miranda was advised of these rights somehow, some way, in addition to the legend on his confession?
-Are these all the panoply of rights guaranteed to the defendant in a criminal trial?
-What would a lawyer advise Miranda that his rights were?
-Is it your position that we should overrule Escobedo?
-Does the 5th Amendment protect every person, or just some persons? I am not talking about in practical effect; I am talking about what the Amendment is supposed to do.
-Would literacy or illiteracy have anything to do with it if they compelled him to testify, whatever comes within the scope of that?
-Is there any claim in this case that this confession was compelled/involuntary?
-Do you claim that Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights were violated?
-Does the record shows that Miranda was advised of these rights somehow, some way, in addition to the legend on his confession?