ipl-logo

Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

1144 Words5 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. When convicted of his crime in 1954, a felony burglary, he was sentenced to probation. …show more content…

She gave police a description that fit Miranda. Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix, Arizona, on charges of kidnapping and rape. After two hours of questioning by police, he signed a full written confession which stated:
“I….. Do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me”.
The 18-year old woman selected Miranda from a police lineup. She explains that Miranda forced her into his car and drove into the desert. He raped her and later dropped her off near her home. He claimed that his confession was invalid because it was coerced and because the police never advised him of his right to an attorney or his right to avoid self-incrimination. The court overturned Miranda’s conviction, holding that the police must inform criminal suspects of their legal rights at the time of arrest and may not interrogate suspects who invoke their …show more content…

The warning does not have to be given at the moment of arrest but only after a person is in custody and before any questioning about the suspected crime. Since 1966, the Court has decided dozens of other cases under Miranda, and they have cut back on Miranda. The most important cutback was a very early decision that the police could use a statement taken without the Miranda warnings to cross-examine a defendant if the defendant took the stand. Interrogations conducted by law enforcement are a valuable tool to obtain confessions to crimes. Even after hearing the Miranda warning, the majority of suspects still agree to talk to police officers. Perhaps they feel guilty over the committed crime, or they are hoping for a more lenient punishment. It is also possible that some don't thoroughly understand their rights, and thus talk

Show More
Related

Case Brief Miranda Vs Arizona

688 Words | 3 Pages

Case Citation: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Plaintiff/ Appellant State of Arizona, Defendant/ Appellee Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation.

Read More

Ernesto Miranda Legal Brief

1061 Words | 5 Pages

Paragraph #2: The Law and Legal Questions The Fifth Amendment is “No person told you held To answer for a capital, or otherwise Infamous crime”. It means that no person can be forced to speak whatsoever. When Miranda was arrested the police were supposed to inform him about his two rights (Right to keep quiet and write for a lawyer) (United States Courts, 2017)

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Dbq

528 Words | 3 Pages

There is a comfort in knowing that one has a form of representation in a situation like this, and the court argues that Miranda was under pressure during his statement. Throughout history, lawyers were available to the general public to allow the defendants a sense of ease instead of vulnerability to the police. This case shows that achieving this right would have resulted in a different outcome of Miranda’s

Read More

Dbq Miranda Essay

1163 Words | 5 Pages

In this case, those tactics were pushed to the extreme. The interrogators showed complete dominance in order for Miranda to confess. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation declares, “He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). In this examination, the rudiments of investigations over-stepped their “dominance” and nearly forced a confession. The accused must be informed of their rights to avoid this mistreatment, otherwise the person suspected is practically compelled to speak, even though they might not do so normally (Document G).

Read More

The Miranda Rights: The Case Of Genovevo Salinas

306 Words | 2 Pages

The Miranda Rights, are well known to most of the public. So you wouldn’t think that you need to ask for them. The fifth amendment, read during the Miranda Rights, is that a suspect has the right to not self incriminate. In the case of Salinas, he thought he was pleading the fifth, but was surprised that really he was just admitting guilt. Genovevo Salinas, was sitting in silence when being interrogated, assuming that the police knew he was pleading the fifth.

Read More

Miranda Warning Dbq

883 Words | 4 Pages

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

Read More

Fifth Amendment Pros And Cons

814 Words | 4 Pages

The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that a defendant, “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

794 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona ruling was the correct one constitutionally. Fundamental rights that must be upheld include the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination. The police shouldn't be able to coerce suspects into giving up their rights or deceive them into doing so in order to get confessions. Suspects are given Miranda warnings so they are aware of their rights and can decide for themselves whether or not to speak with the police. Therefore the decision was constitutionally correct as Miranda did not expressly request legal representation, so his constitutional rights were not infringed, the Supreme Court of Arizona said upon

Read More

Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis

1124 Words | 5 Pages

The reason each of those amendments was brought up was to show that the Constitution was the first step to individual rights. However, as you may have noticed before the Miranda decision, the Constitution covered many rights of those accused. Those rights were mainly used inside the courtroom; not when the individual’s were being arrested and interrogated. This then led to police abuse in interrogating situations; the suspects then felt that they had to say anything just to make the law enforcement officials feel like they are being compliant (Sonneborn, 2004) This then would often lead to false confessions.

Read More

Miranda Warnings Research Paper

257 Words | 2 Pages

“Miranda warnings are triggered by a simple formula: Custody + Interrogation = The requirement for Miranda warnings” (petrocelli, 2010, p.18). Questioning that occurs by a law enforcement officer after an individual has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom requires that an officer must first read the individual their Miranda rights. Officers do not always have to Mirandize citizen before asking questions only in cases where the individual is being taken into custody or is not free to leave. It can often be confusing to now whether a person is in custody, but that can be clarified by determining if the person has been told they are under arrest, or if the person has been deprived of freedom to the degree one associates

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

890 Words | 4 Pages

Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

Read More

Miranda Warning

714 Words | 3 Pages

At the same time police officers now can’t abuse their power during interrogations and force a conviction out of a suspect in custody. Roscoe C. Howard Jr. also state, “ The Miranda majority took great pains to trace the history of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and demonstrate that its application to custodial interrogations was rooted in the Constitution.” Based on Howard Jr.’s quote, the Miranda Rights are traced back to the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. No where in the U.S constitution does it say anything about Miranda Rights. However, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and by interpreting the Fifth Amendment of the constitution, the court created the Miranda Warning standard.

Read More

Argument Against Miranda Rights

471 Words | 2 Pages

The constitution also has a set of amendments that are well known called the bill of rights, in view that they mostly deal with rights of the “people” and all citizens of the United States. We as citizens should be aware of our rights in the Constitution. As the ‘’people’’ of America should realize that any of our rights in the Constitution is subjected to frequently understanding by our courts, especially by the United States Supreme Court. The Miranda Rights should and meant to be told to those held in custody, detained.

Read More

Custodial Interrogation Analysis

1188 Words | 5 Pages

Custodial interrogations remain a gray area that has often attracted numerous debates and raised various legal questions. This involves restraining the freedom of movement of an individual even though the said individual has not been subjected to any kind of arrest. This mostly affects minority communities even though they might not pose flight risks. It has often been documented that through custodial interrogations, law enforcement agents use various manipulation techniques that force unsuspecting individuals to give testimony that might prove self-incriminating (Dinos, 2015). For this reason, custodial interrogations are believed to infringe rights, especially since suspects are allowed to have an attorney present at all times.

Read More

Miranda Rights Are More Than Just Words Essay

557 Words | 3 Pages

What does the mean the Miranda rights are more than just words? The Miranda rights are more than just words on paper people have two rights in the Miranda Rights. Those two Miranda Rights are “you have the right to remain silent”, “anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law”. The Miranda Rights are more than just words.

Read More

More about Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Related Topics

Open Document