The Four Elements of the Miranda Warning

The case argued by the U.S Supreme court in 1966 on Miranda V. Arizona emphasized the fifth amendment when individuals are taken in for questioning by police, detective, and any other law enforcement officers. The law stipulates that individuals in custody must be told on their rights to bar them from making self-incriminatory statements and right to request for an attorney during the outset of interrogation. The Miranda Warning encompasses four elements that validate procedural provisions to enforce the 5th amendment rights to the accused: Any action that demonstrates the deprivation of the right to remain silent will not be used as evidence in the court of law 

The interrogation procedural confines needed to protect constitutional rights for individuals should not in any way cause unwarranted obstruction of pertinent enforcement of the law. In all cases, individuals have the right to an attorney to prevent statements that may lead to self-incrimination. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them. The Miranda Warning should be administered immediately, individuals are taken into custody, and before any interrogation is done, the law enforcement officers are required to recite the Miranda right when an arrest is made. In effect, statements with the intention of exculpation from the accused are, in most cases, used as compelled self-incriminatory testimonies during prosecution or in the validation of falsehoods in the statements presented in the course of interrogation, hence used as a proof of guilt by implication. The privilege may be waived in instances; the defendant fails to invoke their right to remain silent or the right to an attorney and prior to that, answers question or offer statements that are self-incriminatory. The defendant has the right to counsel at all key persecution stages, both the plea and the trial stage. Any waiver of the law is voluntarily, and the constitution does not force counsel to the accused; however, the defendant should be advised on his utility of the right to counsel as well as self-representation dangers. Sam contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly challenge the prosecution’s DNA evidence linking him to clothing items and the gun recovered by police from the hotel room where the crime occurred. Sam argues that trial counsel knew the prosecution’s DNA evidence was cross-contaminated, so counsel should have requested funds to hire an expert witness to re-test that evidence and called the expert witness at trial to rebut the testimony of the prosecution's DNA expert. During the trial, Sam’s counsel did not hire an expert to challenge the prosecution’s DNA evidence, but he did cross-examine the prosecution’s DNA expert about the possibility of cross-contamination. Also, during the trial, there was an abundance of other evidence linking Sam to the crime. Ultimately, Sam was convicted of the crime by a jury. The prosecution DNA- evidence links Sam to a crime committed in a hotel room. The gun recovered the police recovered, and clothing items further place him at the scene of the crime, which makes him guilty. Though Sam argues his right to counsel was infringed due to lack of expert opinion on the DNA results on the part of his defense. The DNA evidence was the main basis of the argument in Sam's case as it linked him directly to the crime. Although the DNA evidence links Sam to the crime, the possibility of cross-contamination would cause enough for an expert witness to re-test the DNA evidence. Arguably, his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by challenging the evidence as it can be circumstantial or planted evidence. With this loop-hole, Sam has reasonably strong argument that this gap may have contributed to a greater extent for his guilty verdict. 

Conclusion 

Sam’s right to counsel was infringed as the defense counsel did not sufficiently advise him or looked into alternative ways to countering the DNA evidence; the breach in the evidence cross-examination did not prove beyond reasonable doubts that he committed the crime.