The Miranda Warnings

When you see a law enforcement agent in the USA make an arrest; they always voice out the following long phrase religiously in this particular order; 

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me”?

They are not reciting this long phrase because they enjoy saying it, or singing it as a poem; they are merely reciting it because they are obligated by law; the Fifth Amendment and judicial precedents to say this to an arrested suspect; if they do not say it, they will be in breach of the law and whatever evidence or statement they obtained from the suspect will be discountenanced.

These rights are made available to a suspect under the Nigerian constitution in section 35 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria.

Those words recited are called the Miranda rights or the Miranda warning and it was named after a notorious criminal by the name “Miranda”. 

Miranda, a suspect, was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness as the person who committed the crime. He was accused of kidnapping and rape and he was then interrogated by two police officers for two straight hours, which resulted in him signing a statement, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions obtained from him were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count.

On appeal, the court held that a suspect must be advised of their rights before being questioned by police, including their right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one as established in Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963. If they were not advised of these rights, any evidence or statement obtained from the suspect would be inadmissible. 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), subsequently became the landmark case providing the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court which the court ruled that by the provisions of the Fifth Amendment, prosecutors are restricted from using a person’s statement made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at the trial unless they can show that the suspect was informed of his right to consult an attorney before and during the questioning and the fight against self incrimination and that the suspect understood those rights but also voluntarily waved them.

These Miranda warnings as established in Miranda v Arizona are five altogether, and a law enforcement agent is expected to recite all to the suspect at his arrest or at his interrogation;

1. You have the right to remain silent. 
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 
3. You have the right to an attorney. 
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. 
5. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me”

If these warnings were not said by the law enforcement agent that made the arrest or by the interrogator before or during the interrogation; whatever statement or evidence obtained from the suspect will be inadmissible in court and will be therefore be discountenanced on the ground that those evidences and statement were obtained from the suspect through coercion, duress or use of force.