Constitution provides freedom from self-incrimination

Constitution provides freedom from self-incrimination

RYAN SINCLAIR

Ryan Sinclair took the oath of office as Hood County’s district attorney in April 2019. He was appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott to fill the post at that time after former D.A. Rob Christian went into private law practice. Sinclair, previously first assistant D.A., was elected as D.A. in 2020.

One of the benefits to being your district attorney is the opportunity this work affords to work with the U.S. Constitution. A lot of people talk about how important the Constitution is, but my job allows me to actually see how important it is. I get to work with the Constitution day in and day out. I get to see where the Constitution intersects citizens’ lives. And I get to support the Constitution by upholding, defending and encouraging proper police procedure.

In my last article, I gave a 40,000-foot overview of the criminal justice process. In this article, we will look at one of the most common, and important, Constitutional rights involved in the criminal justice system: the 5th Amendment freedom from self-incrimination.

The 5th Amendment provides, among other things, that “(n)o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” This is commonly known as the privilege against self-incrimination.  But what does that privilege mean? How is this right protected? And how does law enforcement go about effectively solving crime without violating this important Constitutional right?

All of us have probably watched “Law and Order” or some “cop” show at some point in our lives. Usually in those shows when the cops slap the cuffs on the bad guy, you hear them immediately tell the handcuffed suspect a list of things. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do will be used against you in a court of law.” Etc. Etc. Etc. What the cops are doing there is informing the defendant of his 5th Amendment freedom from self-incrimination. This is commonly called “reading the defendant his Miranda rights.” The term “Miranda Rights” comes from a seminal United States Supreme Court case titled Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In that case, the Supreme Court wrestled with how best to protect a citizen’s 5th Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination.

The Miranda case actually addressed four different cases involving four different defendants: Ernesto Miranda, Michael Vignera, Carl Calvin Westover and Roy Allen Stewart. The Supreme Court found that none of these defendants had been adequately informed of their privilege against self-incrimination prior to custodial questioning by the police. Thus, their 5th Amendment right had been violated, and their convictions should be overturned.

As a result of this case, the Court set down a bright-line rule that law enforcement and prosecution must follow. This rule holds that prior to questioning a suspect in custody, law enforcement must give the following warnings: (1) the suspect has the right to remain silent; (2) anything the suspect says can be used against him in court; (3) he has the right to consult an attorney prior to any questioning and to have the attorney present during any questioning, and; (4) an attorney will be provided free of charge if the suspect cannot afford an attorney. Law enforcement oftentimes also provide an additional warning that informs the suspect he can terminate the interview at any time. These rights, taken together, are known as the “Miranda Warning,” or the “Miranda Rights.” By reading the Miranda Warning to the defendant prior to custodial questioning, law enforcement informs the citizen of his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

There are some very important things to note about the Miranda Rights, though. First, the Miranda Rights only relate to custodial interrogation. The police are not required to give the Miranda Warning when questioning a person who is not in police custody. Secondly, like many other Constitutional rights, this privilege against self-incrimination may be waived by the suspect. As long as the Miranda Warning is given prior to custodial questioning, the suspect can choose to waive his privilege against self-incrimination and answer law enforcement’s questions. Lastly, the Miranda Warning does not apply to any spontaneous statements made by the suspect not in response to police questioning. If a suspect walks into the police station and voluntarily confesses to robbing the local bank without any questioning by the police, the Miranda Warning is not required.

The 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is just one of the ways prosecutors and law enforcement get to interact with our national Constitution on a daily basis. I will discuss other exciting ways we interact with that document in future articles.

But until next time, the State rests.