The Right to Counsel is a fundamental right in Nigeria by virtue of Section 35 (2) of the Constitution. In analysing this right and the akin rights to Silence and Protection Against Self-Incrimination, we consider the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA
Ernesto Miranda was a school dropout with a criminal record. On March 13, 1963, Miranda was arrested at his home on suspicion of having kidnapped and raped a somewhat retarded eighteen year old girl. He was taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. The complainant (victim) identified him at the station. Miranda was then questioned in an interrogation room by two police officers. (The officers admitted at trial that Miranda was never advised that he had a right to have a lawyer present.) After two hours in a police interrogation room, Miranda signed a written confession to the crimes. Not only had Miranda not been advised of his Right to Counsel, he was also not alerted that he had a right to remain silent, or to be protected against self-incrimination. Yet at the top of his written confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntarily made, without threats or promises of immunity and "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."
Despite his lawyer's objections, the confession was presented as evidence at the ensuing trial. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to Twenty to Thirty years imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession, and affirmed the conviction. In reaching its decision, the Arizona Supreme Court emphasized the fact that Miranda never specifically requested counsel.
The case of Miranda v Arizona eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which quashed Miranda's conviction, reversing the lower courts decisions. The Supreme Court held that - WITHOUT the REQUISITE WARNINGS as to the RIGHT to COUNSEL and to have one present during interrogation, and as to the privilege against self-incrimination, the statement was inadmissible. The mere fact that he signed a statement, which contained a standard form clause stating that he had full knowledge of his legal rights, does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights.
(Miranda was later re-tried, convicted on the strength of other evidence than the purported confession, and served eleven years. He was paroled in 1972 and died of bar brawl stab wounds in 1976, aged 34. A suspect was arrested for the Miranda homicide, but he invoked his Miranda right to silence, and had to be released. No one was ever charged with the killing of Miranda.)
Miranda went to the United States Supreme Court along with three other similar cases: Vignera v New York, Westover v United States, and California v Stewart. In each of the four cases the defendant while in police custody was questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting counsel in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of the cases, signed statements as well, which were admitted at trial. All defendants were convicted. In respective intermediate appeals, three of the convictions were affirmed. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the four cases were considered ensemble. The Supreme Court held as follows:
1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way, unless the prosecution shows that effective procedural safeguards to secure the Fifth Amendment privilege against Self-Incrimination were used. (The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ordains that "No person shall … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself … ").
The atmosphere and environment of interrogation is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against Self-Incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.
The privilege against Self-Incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of the adversary system and guarantees the individual the "Right to Remain Silent Unless He Chooses To Speak In The Unfettered Exercise of His Own Free Will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations.
To safeguard the privilege against Self-Incrimination, the following measures must be observed;
(i) Prior to interrogation, the person in custody must be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent, and that anything he says may be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
(ii) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he says he wants a lawyer, the questioning must cease until a lawyer is present.
2. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of a lawyer and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
The fact that a person in custody has already started talking or answering questions does not and cannot operate as a waiver of his privilege, and he always remains at liberty to invoke his right to silence at any subsequent time.
The requisite warnings and, in cases where the defendant does not utilise his rights the waiver as well, are conditions precedent to the admissibility of any statement, whether inculpatory or otherwise, made by a defendant.
3. In each of these four cases (Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewartthe) statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for the protection of the privilege against Self-Incrimination.
The significance of Miranda is not in establishing or recognizing the Rights to Counsel, Silence, and Protection Against Self-Incrimination. At the date of the Miranda decision, these rights were already long hallowed in American constitutional law. The importance of the Miranda precedent lay in requiring these rights to be clearly explained to the suspect by law enforcement personnel before any interrogation. Ignorance of these rights is an excuse for the uninformed suspect to later jettison any statement he makes without having been alerted of them. A right is hardly meaningful if the entitled are unaware of its existence. A statement made to law enforcement would not be admissible, unless, prior to making it, the maker had been advised of his Miranda rights, and either exercised them or voluntarily waived them.
"Reading him his rights" has long become a standard and vital component of U.S. law enforcement and criminal justice.
Thus, Miranda is vital in saying that NOT ONLY DOES THE INDIVIDUAL HAVE THE RIGHTS TO SILENCE, COUNSEL AND PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, but also HAS THE RIGHT TO BE EDUCATED OR REMINDED OF THESE RIGHTS at the outset of the relevant adversarial encounter with the criminal justice system or law enforcement apparatus.
It is important to note that the 'Miranda Rights' are of American origin and thus are not a part and parcel of our legal system. However, it does have a persuasive effect on our Courts, guiding the courts in the admissibility of evidence given especially where such did not conform to the norms of questioning and detaining a suspect.
Notwithstanding, applicable in Nigeria is the Judges Rules, which is in effect and context similar to the Miranda rights. We shall treat this in our next post.
Know Your Rights!!!
Brought To You By The RiDe Campaign Team.
Contact Us : ridecampaign@gmail.com (email) or @RiDeCampaign (Twitter) or 08060248649/ 08072009099/ 08062511524 (Call)
--
For More Info, Visit;
- www.nulai.org (NULAI)
- www.facebook.com/UniversityOfAbujaLawClinic
- www.twitter.com/UniAbjLawClinic
- http://gplus.to/RiDeCampaign
its always nice to know the origin of certain laws.
ReplyDeleteSo, how are the Miranda rights read out in Nigeria. Do they sound different?
ReplyDelete