Miranda v. Arizona（1966）
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 760, Vignera v. New York, on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York and No. 761, Westover v. United States, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, both argued February 28 - March 1, 1966; and No. 584, California v. Stewart, on certiorari to the Supreme Court of California, argued February 28 - March 2, 1966.
在维格纳拉(Vignera)诉纽约州政府一案中，美国最高法院签发了给纽约上诉法院的第760号调卷令，在韦斯托弗(Westover)诉美国政府一案中，美国最高法院签发了给美国第九巡回法庭上诉法院的第761号调卷令，这两个案件以及米兰达诉亚利桑那州案都在1966年2月28日到1966年3月1日这一期间进行了审理:在加利福尼亚州政府诉斯图尔特(Stewart)一案中，美国最高法院签发了给加利福尼亚州最高法院的第584号调卷令，这一案件于1966年2月28日到1966年3月2日这一期间进行了审理。
In each of these cases the defendant while in police custody was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney 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 them signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal. Held:
在以上这几个案件中，被告在被警方扣押期间，在一个与外界隔绝的房间里均受到了来自警员，侦查员以及检察官的讯问。在讯问过程开始时，没有一个被告被完全、看效的告知其所拥有的权利。在以上这四个案例中，警方讯问时均获得了被告的口供，其中有三个案件被告还签署了书面供述，且这些书面供述在初审时均被法庭采纳。这四名被告初审时均被宣判有罪。在上诉时，除了斯图尔特一案，其他均维持初审判决。法院裁定:
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 of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.
1.当犯罪嫌疑人被逮捕拘留或者被以其他方式明显剥夺了行动自由后，受到执法人员的讯问而做出的开脱责任的供述或者显示犯罪的供述，都不能被公诉人用作证据，除非公诉人证明在被告被讯问过程中，执法人员有效进行了程序保障以确保被告美国宪法第五条修正案中不自证其罪的特权。(见444-491页)
(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today 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. Pp. 445-458.
(a)在进行与外界隔绝的讯问过程中，讯问的气氨和环培木身就很吓人(这种情况至今依然存在)，这损害了犯罪嫌疑人不自证其罪的特权。除非警方采取了足够的预防措施来消除这一拘留环境本身带来的对犯罪嫌疑人的胁迫感，否则因此而获得的犯罪嫌疑人的供述不能被真正视为其自由选择的结果。(见445-458页)
(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 436, 437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.
(b)不自证其罪的特权有着一段很长的发展历史，它是我们抗辩制体制的重要支柱，它确保了个人在受拘留讯问期间(美国1966年判例汇编第384卷第436和437页)，在法庭上或者在其他官方调查过程中“有权保持沉默，除非犯罪嫌疑人在完全自由意志情况下个人选择说话”。(见458-465页)
(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp.465-466.
(c)埃斯科韦多(Escobedo)诉伊利诺伊州政府(美国判例汇编第378卷第478页)一案的判决书中强调需要采取防护措施以使警方讯问过程遵循不自证其罪特权的要求。(见465-466页)
(d) In the absence of other effective measures the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.
(d)在缺乏其他有效措施的情况下，必须遵循以下步骤来捍卫第五修正案中的不自证其罪特权:在讯问之前，警方必须清楚告知被拘留人员，他有权保持沉默，他所说的一切都将会在法庭上作为指控他的不利证据:他有权咨询律师，并可要求在讯问过程中有律师在场，如果他请不起律师，法庭将为他指派一名律师。(见467-473页)
(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.
(e)在讯问前或讯问过程中，如果当事人表明他希望保持沉默，那么讯问必须停止;如果他表示想要一名律师，那么在律师到场前讯问不得继续进行。(见473-474页)
(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 475.
(f)如果犯罪嫌疑人在接受讯问时没有律师在场，警方获得的供述要想被采纳，那么政府应担起重任，证明被告清楚知晓且明智的选择放弃其咨询律师的权利。(见475页)
(g) Where the individual answers some questions during incustody interrogation he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. Pp. 475-476.
(g)如果犯罪嫌疑人在接受拘留讯问时回答了一些问题，这并不意味着他放弃了不自证其罪的特权，之后他也可以行使其保持沉默的权利。(见475-476页)
(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant. Pp. 476-477.
(h)在未采取完全有效的相应措施的情况下，犯罪嫌疑人所作的不论是开脱责任的供述或者是显示犯罪的供述可被采纳为证据的先决条件是警方宣读警告和犯罪嫌疑人放弃其不自证其罪特权。(见476-477页)
2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. Pp. 479-491.
2.为了保护公民的宪法权利而对讯问过程进行限制不应该造成对合理执法体系的过度干涉。美国联邦调查局的相关步骤和其他管辖范围所提供的保障措施都证明了这一点。
3. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 491-499.
3.在以上这四个案例中，犯罪嫌疑人所作的供述均是在不符合保障其不自证其罪特权的宪法标准的情况下获得的。(见491-499页)
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
首席法官沃伦发表法庭判决意见书。
The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself. [384 U.S. 436, 440]
我们面前的这四个案子提出了美国刑法学概念本源的问题:在起诉公民犯罪时社会所必须遵守的与联邦宪法相一致的限制性条款。具体来说，我们处理的是个人遭受警方拘留讯问时所作供述是否可被采纳为证据以及确保宪法第五修正案中公民不被强迫自证其罪这一特权的程序是否必要。(美国判例汇编第384卷第436440页)
We dealt with certain phases of this problem recently in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). There, as in the four cases before us, law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney. Rather, they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder. When the defendant denied the accusation and said "I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it," they handcuffed him and took him to an interrogation room. There, while handcuffed and standing, he was questioned for four hours until he confessed. During this interrogation, the police denied his request to speak to his attorney, and they prevented his retained attorney, who had come to the police station, from consulting with him. At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him. We held that the statements thus made were constitutionally inadmissible.
近来在埃斯科韦多诉伊利诺伊州一案(美国1964年判例汇编第378卷第478页)中，本院处理了这一问题的某些阶段性问题。跟我们面前的这四个案件类似，在埃斯科韦多诉伊利诺伊州一案中，执法人员拘留了被告，并在警察局对其进行了讯问，以期获得其供述。警方没有有效的告知被告其保持沉默或者咨询律师的权利。相反的，警方让被告与同案共犯对峙，该共犯指控被告犯有谋杀罪。而被告否认了这一指控，并称“我没有向曼纽尔开枪，是你开的枪”，之后警方用手铐铐住被告，将他带进了审讯室。在审讯室里，被告戴着手铐一直站着，警方对其讯问了四个小时，被告才认罪。在讯问过程中，警方拒绝了被告请求与律师谈话的要求，被告聘请的律师已经来到了警局，而数方拒绝被告咨询该律师。在初审时，尽管被告反对，但伊利诺伊州政府仍然提交了不利干被告的供述。本院认为，用这种方式获得的供述在宪法上是不能被采纳的。
This case has been the subject of judicial interpretation and spirited legal debate since it was decided two years ago. Both state and federal courts, in assessing its implications, have arrived at varying conclusions. 1 A wealth of scholarly material has been written tracing its ramifications and underpinnings. 2 Police and prosecutor [384 U.S. 436, 441] have speculated on its range and desirability. 3 We granted certiorari in these cases, 382 U.S. 924, 925 , 937, in order further to explore some facets of the problems, thus exposed, of applying the privilege against self-incrimination to in-custody interrogation, and to give [384 U.S. 436, 442] concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.
自两年前这一案件被裁决后，该案就成为了司法解释和激烈的法律辩论的主题。在评价这一案件可能产生的影响时，州法院和联邦法院得出了不同的结论。学者们写了很多的学术资料探讨这一案件的可能影响和理论基础。警方和检察官(见美国判例汇编第384卷第436441页)思考了这一案件的适用范围和可取之处。为了进一步探索在拘留讯问中适用个人不自证其罪这一特权所暴露出的不同方面的问题，同时也为了给执法机构和法庭提供具体的宪法指导原则作参考，本院签发了这些案件(见美国判例汇编第382卷第924,925,937页)的调卷令。
