ipl-logo

Brief Analysis Of The Miranda Vs. Arizona Court Case

928 Words4 Pages

“You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law, you have the right to an attorney” this is a phrase commonly used by police officers and is known as your Miranda Rights. In 1963 a man named Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape, kidnapping and an armed robbery. The police than interrogated him for hours without once informing him of his constitutional rights. Miranda then confessed to the crimes as an officer was recording.He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. The Miranda vs. Arizona court case ruled that detained criminal suspects , prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self incrimination, the case was one …show more content…

At Miranda first trial the prosecution's case consisted only of his confession. Miranda argued that he should not go to jail because he was not clearly read his rights which violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. This means the police put him in a hard situation without informing him on what was he was allowed to do but instead waited for him to give up and plead guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court ignored the Escobedo rule, which states, evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. His conviction was erroneous, and Miranda deserved a new trial. In 1966 Miranda then appealed to the U.S Supreme court which then reviewed his case in 1966. This later leads to a partial success on Miranda’s …show more content…

The supreme court revealed, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in the trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. This made it harder to convict Miranda. The U.S Supreme court ruled that the Arizona supreme court could not use the confession because it was the police's duty to inform criminal suspect of their Fifth and Sixth amendment. The the Fifth Amendment states that the police must inform the criminal suspect he/she does not have to testify against himself/herself. The sixth amendment states that the suspect has the right to an attorney. As an effect criminal suspects now will not be able to use being misinformed as an

Show More
Related

Summary Of Miranda V Arizona 384 US 436

529 Words | 3 Pages

The conviction was based off of the confession Miranda gave and the eyewitness identification of him by the victim. After Miranda was convicted, he was represented by different lawyers in front of the supreme court and they argued that the police questioning/interrogating without an attorney present violated Miranda’s fifth and sixth amendment rights, and therefore should not be able

Read More

Miranda V. Arizona 1966 Summary

489 Words | 2 Pages

Because Miranda was not informed of his fifth or sixth amendment, the court heard this case to clarify the procedure of making suspects aware that they have the right to an attorney as well as the right to not self incriminate. The prosecution believed he voluntarily disregarded his right to counsel as well as his right to remain silent after being informed by the police. They argued that no amendment was violated because the confession that was made by Miranda was evidence that could be used against him in court when he could have remained silent. The prosecution argued that his confession was permissible to be used as evidence in the court of his criminal case.

Read More

Earl Warren's Three Major Court Cases

1064 Words | 5 Pages

Earl Warren Many chief justices have worked on popular cases over the years. In particular I am going to be talking about Earl Warren; his early life, he was a past chief justice, why he chose what he did and the three major cases he worked on throughout his life. All of these affected our lives in one way or another. The three cases Earl Warren worked on were Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Benton v. Maryland.

Read More

Why Was Salinas Silence A True Exercise Of The Fifth Amendment?

1407 Words | 6 Pages

Both courts affirmed the lower court’s judgment and rejected Salinas’ claim that his silence was used in chief violation of the Fifth Amendment. Issue: Can one fairly conclude that an individual who agreed to be questioned has revoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection? Was Salinas’ silence a true exercise of this amendment? Rule: The petitioner must specifically call on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the time he relies on it in order to receive the benefit. Decision: Salinas’ claim fails because he did not verbally invoke this Fifth Amendment privilege in his response to the officer’s questions.

Read More

Miranda Vs. Arizona Policing Cases

538 Words | 3 Pages

Policing was forever changed in 1966 after the deciding factor of the case Miranda vs. Arizona. The case also addressed three other cases involving custodial interrogations, the cases were Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping, and robbery, after he was identified by the victim. Miranda was not informed of his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination, and also his 6th amendment right to have a counsel. Miranda was then interrogated by the Phoenix Police where he was arrested for two hours, and allegedly confessed to the crimes which was recorded by the police.

Read More

Case Study Of Miranda V. Arizona

845 Words | 4 Pages

The police officers told Miranda that he was not obligated to have an attorney present. After two hours of being in custody he signed a statement admitting that he knows the full knowledge of his right and anything from the statement can be used against him. His statement went to a jury at his trial where he was found guilty and was sentenced to prison. The Arizona supreme court did not think that Miranda’s rights were

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

587 Words | 3 Pages

David Joseph Solis Prof. Richard Manderfield WRA 115, Section 001 October 7 2015 Miranda v. Arizona, a Spark of Democracy In 1966, a Supreme Court ruling became one of the most important cases that are studied in today’s history classes. Miranda v. Arizona, a case that began when Ernesto Miranda confessed to the authorities that he indeed, raped a teenage female. Even though Miranda did not know his rights nor was he informed of them, he signed a confession where it stated that he knew his rights. The Miranda v. Arizona case did not only establish the Miranda rights, but became a symbol of democracy; an important cultural value in the United States.

Read More

Danny Escobedo Pros And Cons

1392 Words | 6 Pages

To ensure that your rights are protected under the United States Constitution, the Miranda warning must be read to you upon an arrest. Danny Escobedo, a 22-year-old murder suspect, was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with a shooting of his brother-in-law, about 11 days prior. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but was released after making no statement and had his lawyer obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. In police custody, Escobedo confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim. He was not advised of his right to remain silent, violating his Fifth Amendment, and police interrogated Escobedo for several hours, while repeatedly denying his request to consult with

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

440 Words | 2 Pages

The Supreme Court stated that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not ask to hear them(Miranda v. Arizona). By not hearing all of his rights Miranda would not be able to successfully win the trial. Even though Miranda wrote his confession under the statement saying that he was completely aware of his rights, his lawyers argued that his rights were not fully explained to him. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 under Earl Warren. They agreed that Miranda’s confessions could not be used as evidence in the crime because

Read More

Miranda Warning Dbq

883 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).

Read More

Steven Avery Miranda Rights Case

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

Earl Warren Accomplishments

1055 Words | 5 Pages

Arizona that criminals must be informed of their rights before being prosecuted. Today, this ruling requires that police inform criminals of their right to remain silent, and that anything they say can be used against them in court. These rights, also known as Miranda rights include the criminal’s right to an attorney. If the police do not read a person’s Miranda rights when arresting a criminal, the court judging the case can discard any evidence that the criminal reveals while in police custody since he or she was not informed of their right to remain silent. While the Miranda decision was unpopular at the time, it was critical to ensuring that criminals were being persecuted for the appropriate crime on clear evidence and received the right to a fast and proper

Read More

Earl Warren's Supreme Court Cases

1023 Words | 5 Pages

Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).

Read More

Essay On Miranda Vs Arizona

1213 Words | 5 Pages

During this case, there was dissent among the justices. This caused the results from the trial to be delayed, but would provide the best answer possible for law enforcement agencies around the United States. As Levenberg, T.O. (1995) states, “The court in Miranda created these procedural safeguards to adequately ensure that the accused know their rights and that the police honor them.” Out of the nine Supreme Court justices, five voted that the initial evidence could not be used because Ernesto Miranda was unaware of his rights to a legal counsel and his right to not give a statement until he had a legal counsel. These justices would go back and review three other cases as they made their decision; Westover vs. United States, Vignera vs. New York, and California vs. Stewart.

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

890 Words | 4 Pages

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote this : “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.” The court set aside his conviction. After a second trial, Miranda 's confession from the previous trial were thrown out. However he was convicted again and was sentenced up to thirty years in federal prison. Once he was released on probation, a violent fight broke out at a local Phoenix, Arizona bar which left a lethal knife wound which killed him.

Read More

More about Brief Analysis Of The Miranda Vs. Arizona Court Case

Related Topics

Open Document