ipl-logo

Assignment 2: Briefing Of Miranda V. Arizona

783 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda v arizona 1966 case study

Abstract
Miranda v. Arizona took place in 1996. The case involves a Hispanic man named, Ernesto Miranda and the state of New York. Miranda is being charged with rape and kidnapping. He was held in interrogation for a lengthy amount of time until he eventually confessed. He was found guilty and the conviction was approved by the supreme court because he did not request a lawyer. Throughout this case the supreme court addressed four other cases that involved custodial interrogations. Issues involving this case is whether or not the Fifth Amendment, which gives us the right to self-incrimination, is being violated when someone is put under arrest and is brought in for the purpose of interrogation and is not informed of his rights to not speak …show more content…

Arizona On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested and brought to a police station in Arizona. He was then taken to an interrogation room. He was questioned and gave his confession without being informed of his rights; specifically, the right to remain silent and have an attorney present. He was found guilty of kidnapping and rape; he was sentenced to about 25 years in prison. Following Miranda's appeal, the Supreme Court approved the ruling and stated that his rights were not violated because he did not request counsel. The main issue with this case is whether or not a person has the right to know their constitutional rights and if they should be informed about their rights before questioning. The arguments in the case began when the defense, who was representing Miranda, made an objection to allowing into evidence the written confession due to Miranda not being properly informed of his constitutional rights. This particular argument originates from the fact that officers had admitted that they did not read Miranda his right to an attorney; they also read his right to a voluntary confession out loud before receiving an oral confession. The State of Arizona then presented their argument that because he did not specifically ask for an attorney, none of his rights were violated. The purpose of their argument was to make certain that the written confession was applied as evidence to charge him with the

Show More
Related
1553 Words | 7 Pages

The Supreme Court took the case of Missouri v. Seibert, on the writ of certiorari to the supreme court
of Missouri. The case looks whether custodial interrogations without first giving Miranda warning of the right to remain silent and right to counsel would have produced the same confession. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, Patrice Siebert was found guilty and convicted of second murder of Donald Rector. The confession that was given was before she was read her Miranda warning and then repeated after the warning had been given.

Read More
667 Words | 3 Pages

In addition, Arizona claimed that Miranda signed the confession willingly and his conviction was based off Arizona law. Arizona claimed the Supreme Court should uphold its conviction and should not downgrade the work from the

Read More
1005 Words | 5 Pages

Ernesto Miranda was tried for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female. When they brought him in, the girl was not able to positively identify him in a lineup (Miranda V. Arizona). He was then interrogated for two hours by two of the officers that arrested him. At the end of the interrogation, Ernesto wrote and signed a confession (United States Courts). Ernesto was tried in Phoenix Arizona, but his lawyers said that the trial was unfair and that his 5th and 6th amendment rights had been violated due to the fact that Ernesto was never told his rights (Miranda V. Arizona).

Read More
538 Words | 3 Pages

Since the Police never informed Miranda of his rights he had no counsel, never finished the 9th grade, and had a former history of mental instability. The prosecution on the case only used his own wrongfully obtained confession against him, and sentenced him 20-30 years in prison. He had appealed to the Arizona Supreme court claiming that the Police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession, the court disagreed with him and upheld the charges and

Read More
672 Words | 3 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.

Read More
528 Words | 3 Pages

Throughout the 1900s, the critical motion of the Civil Rights Movement greatly influenced society. The various cases that were introduced in courts impacted the fight for equality as well as the creation of stronger laws. A powerful case in this era was Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, a man that confessed to accusations was set free because he was not advised of his rights to remain silent and request a lawyer. The ruling of this case shows the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination by showing the importance of the Fifth Amendment, the signifcance of the right to an attorney, and that under the law, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Read More
614 Words | 3 Pages

As it states on pg.5 “The person who is in custody and subject to interrogation must be advised of the rights referred to in Miranda v Arizona in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against him or her at trial.”. The state argues that what he said was voluntary and that he was not under interrogation when he made the statement that he did about how much he had to drink. The sixth amendment states that one can’t incriminate oneself outside of Miranda rights. So anything said to the police or that the police have would be invalid because he wasn’t read and asked if he understood his rights. The fourth amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

Read More
713 Words | 3 Pages

Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, stating that when a person is taken into police custody, before being interrogated he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statement (Criminal.findlaw.com, 2017). When in the police custody they have to tell you the four things before being questioned about anything. Having to be questioned a suspect in custody devoid of having given the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is supposed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. The law requires that officers read Miranda rights to a suspect in custody prior to their questioning or interrogation (Criminal.findlaw.com, 2017).For saying the Miranda rights it informs the suspect that he/she have the right to remain silent, that anything he

Read More
1087 Words | 5 Pages

In the earlier paragraph I stated that our Miranda rights are the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, the right to an attorney, if you can not afford an attorney one will be provided for you. The reason police have to tell a person these before detaining or questioning is because if they gain a statement or confession without telling a suspect their Miranda rights those statements are no longer valid in any court of law. This is exactly what happened in the Miranda V. Arizona case. Miranda was detained by police for questioning and gave a written confession after two hours of custodial questioning. Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and killing a girl and was sentenced to twenty five to thirty years in jail.

Read More
794 Words | 4 Pages

In this paper, we'll talk about the background facts and information surrounding the case, the specifics of the case, the case's resolution, and whether the resolution was constitutionally sound. We will also look at how this case has affected history and how it will continue to do so in the future. For allegedly kidnapping and raping a woman in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was detained in 1963. He was not made aware of his constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, by the police when they were questioning him.

Read More
652 Words | 3 Pages

Arizona was one of the greatest controversy’s the Warren Court had ever made thus far, With the way officers worked to get information, not only where the people skeptical about their methods, but as well as the justices. In Miranda v. Arizona the court reversed the decision on Ernesto Miranda, and all charges were dropped as well as his statements and case. After being identified in a police lineup shortly after being arrested, Ernesto was questioned by police vigpursly; he confessed what he had done and the proceeded to sign a written statement, all being done without knowing the fact that he had the right to have a lawyer present to assist in his case and that he had the right to remain silent to prevent self-incrimination. Later on, Ernesto’s confession was used to obtain a conviction unlawfully. Being that Ernesto was not told his rights, the court then had to dismiss all evidence and statements previously made while in police

Read More
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
94 Words | 1 Pages

The sixth amendment gives any citizen in the United States of America, the rights to a legal counsel when accused of a crime. When Ernesto was arrested and was interrogated for over two hours, he was never told once about his rights to an attorney. Then it allowed the police to receive a confession out of him to use in court, which also valuated the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment say that a person can not be a witness to themselves, which means that Ernesto confession was not valid evidence to us in court.

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

While being interrogated during the case, Miranda confessed to the crime but was not told of his right to remain silent or have a lawyer. Later, on appeal, Miranda stated he should have been told his rights, to that, the government objected. The Supreme Court stepped in, disagreeing with the government and made a person’s rights be read to them after every arrest

Read More
1651 Words | 7 Pages

Arizona (1966) upheld Ernesto Miranda’s fifth amendment rights affording protection from self-incrimination and sixth amendment right to an attorney (Miranda v. Arizona, n.d.). The case of Miranda v. Arizona is critical to this discussion because defendants are not required to respond to the exhaustive, repeated, leading interrogations in which law enforcements officers are permitted and empowered to engage in trickery tactics to coerce a suspect to confess to a crime. As a result of the final Supreme Court ruling in this case, law enforcement officials are required to provide all suspects with the Miranda Warning by informing them of their constitutional rights to remain silent during interrogations, in addition to their right to an attorney. Given the tactics that are reportedly used during police interrogations, it is certainly prudent, in many cases, to invoke Miranda rights and avoid self-incrimination. This leads to an essential component of this topic.

Read More

More about Assignment 2: Briefing Of Miranda V. Arizona

Related Topics

Open Document