ipl-logo

Summary Of Miranda V. Arizona

672 Words3 Pages

A) Case Name and Citation
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)
B) Summary of the Facts Ernesto A. Miranda a resident of Phoenix, Arizona was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman. The police arrested Miranda and held him at the police station for interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda confessed to having committed the crimes. His confession was used against him in trial and Miranda was found guilty.
C) Statement of the Issue(s)
Is evidence admissible in a court of law if obtained unlawfully by authorities- without warning of self-incrimination and without assistance of an attorney? Are authorities required to inform a person placed under custody of their right to the Fifth Amendment?
D) Summary of …show more content…

These rights must be read to all suspects. When authorities fail to inform the suspects of their rights, any evidence that is obtained under integration is inadmissible because it violates the suspect’s constitutional rights. In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, Escobedo was placed under interrogation in order to obtain a confession. The authorities failed to read Escobedo his rights, and continued interrogating for hours while denying his rights to see an attorney. During trial, the State used Escobedo’s confession but was held inadmissible because it was obtained unlawfully putting the defendant at risk of self-incrimination. The court ruled that prior to any interrogation, the person must have their rights read to them and if failed to do so anything said by the suspect during interrogation cannot be used during …show more content…

It limits the amount of power that authorities have on a person placed under custody. The right remain silent is given to avoid self-incrimination and to inform the person of the possible consequences if he or she decides to speak. The right to an attorney is given so that a suspect can have legal advice at any given point during custody and to ensure that the suspect’s right to remain silent or to speak under interrogation is being acknowledge by the authorities. The presence of an attorney can also reduce the probability of physical brutality from police to obtain a

Show More
Related

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    1196 Words  | 5 Pages

    The decision of The Supreme court for Miranda V. Arizona addressed 4 separate trials. In the Miranda V. Arizona trial while he was being questioned he had no contact with the outside world. In the trial he was not told all of his rights. The questioning brought about oral statements, three of which, were signed statements that were disclosed at trial. Miranda was arrested at his house where he was then taken to the police station, and identified by an witness.

    Read More

  • Why Is Mcculloch Vs Maryland Important

    1933 Words  | 8 Pages

    Mucolly The Supreme Court settles yet another argument; this time, it is MuCulloch v. Maryland. The end decision helped broaden the roles of the federal government, but not necessarily supplied the government with more power. It also shows that activities that fall into the federal category are taken care of seriously and with a reason.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    694 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

    734 Words  | 3 Pages

    It was later noticed upon an appeal to the state Supreme Court that the officer who arrested Miranda, did not state his basic rights and was affirmed. (legaldictionary.net, Procedural History). This also means that Miranda couldn’t be set free because he did not ask to have an to be attorney present. But, Miranda and other defendants with similar cases petitioned to the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate the case and to have another ruling. The overall ruling of the final case to have it mandatory to read these specific rights was passed and are vital to the process of being arrested and

    Read More

  • Miranda's Confession, Injustice In Pheonix, Arizona

    364 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.

    Read More

  • Principles Of Miranda Vs Arizona Democracy

    569 Words  | 3 Pages

    This case began in 1963 and ended in 1966 when the Supreme Court ruled that all detained criminal suspects should be informed of their constitutional rights to an attorney and against self incrimination. In this case, the Supreme Court implemented a few of the foundations of democracy to come to a verdict such as the one in this case which was to ensure that the rights of every

    Read More

  • Arturo Miranda Research Paper

    515 Words  | 3 Pages

    During the course of police interrogation, Miranda confessed to another serious crime. Ultimately, the courts decided that since Miranda had not been informed of his fifth amendment rights and had not waived them, his confession was not valid. It is because of this case that law enforcement officers today read what is known as

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    1144 Words  | 5 Pages

    For nearly fifty years police have been reading suspects their rights because of a landmark 1966 United States Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their Constitutional right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. This protects the individual from self incrimination and if they were to speak it would be on their own free will. The United States Supreme Court has changed the way police conduct their duties to this day, while protecting an individual’s rights. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of his first crime while in eighth grade.

    Read More

  • Danny Escobedo Pros And Cons

    1392 Words  | 6 Pages

    Although in this case, Escobedo confessed his crime before his rights were stated to him, therefore, "... no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial," (ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS) which caused his confession overthrown by the court. In addition, this case is interesting to me because I believe it was fascinating how the accused murderer, Escobedo, was able to get away with his crime simply because his Miranda Rights were not stated to him before he confessed and was denied his right to counsel which was the police department's

    Read More

  • Arizona Vs Miranda Essay

    829 Words  | 4 Pages

    The legal case of Arizona v. Miranda, which took place in 1966, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that had a profound impact on criminal procedure in the country. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, a man who had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The overall issue of the case was the admissibility of the confession that Miranda had made to the police during his interrogation, which had been obtained without informing him of his constitutional rights. The court ultimately ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence against him, as the police had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This decision led to the creation of what today is known

    Read More

  • Earl Warren Accomplishments

    1055 Words  | 5 Pages

    One of the most influential judges of his time, Earl Warren was born on March 11th, 1891 to a Norwegian immigrant. Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles, California. He grew up in Bakersfield and attended the School of Jurisprudence of the University of California at Berkeley for his education. During these years, Warren worked as a law clerk, where he assisted local judges in writing legal determinations and opinions. The occupation granted him experience in the field of law as well as financial stability.

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights Vs Fifth Amendment

    376 Words  | 2 Pages

    The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.

    Read More

  • We The People Chapter 4 Summary

    501 Words  | 3 Pages

    The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

    Read More

  • Landmark Cases: Barron V. Baltimore

    808 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arkansas. Charges were brought against Alex Blueford in January of 2011, for the murder of his girlfriend’s 20 month old son. However, Blueford had already been charged for the murder, resulting in a mistrial. Once Blueford was aware of the repeating charge, he argued that allowing a retrial would violate the “double-jeopardy” clause found in the fifth amendment. This case offered insight on a part of the fifth amendment that is extremely important to individuals.

    Read More

More about Summary Of Miranda V. Arizona

Open Document