ipl-logo

Case Summary Of The Miranda V. Arizona Brief Case

539 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda v arizona 1966 case study

Selina Ledezma Mrs. Kowalski-Garza CRIJ 3310-91L March 20, 2017 Miranda v. Arizona Brief Case Citation: 384 U.S. 436 Year Decided: 1966 Summary of the facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home in Phoenix, Arizona by two officers. He was taken to the police station where he was picked in a lineup by the victim of kidnapping and rape and later identified in a robbery case. After two hours of being interrogated Miranda confessed the crime. He was not advised of either his right to counsel, right to consult with counsel, or right to remain silent before his oral confession. Miranda was found guilty by the jury and convicted to 20 to 30 years in prison after the state court and prosecutor used his confession. Miranda’s attorney appealed to the U.S Supreme Court which were going to hear his case. In the Trial Court a counsel was appointed to defend him in the robbery and rape and kidnapping case. Identify the issue (IRAC): Was it the officers right to inform the suspect of his 5th and 6th amendment before interrogating him? …show more content…

It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use”(Cornell University Law School). The United States Constitution also guarantees the 6th amendment, “rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you” ( Cornell University Law

Show More
Related
557 Words | 3 Pages

14.- Amendment XIV. Citizenship; Privileges And Immunities; Due Process; Equal Protection; Appointment Of Representation; Disqualification Of Officers; Public Debt; Enforcement B. Application: 1. The prosecution argued that the evidence and testimony of witnesses were sufficient for a guilty verdict. They also

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona, stating his confession should have been inadmissible during the original trial, due to fact he had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the lower court's

Read More
783 Words | 4 Pages

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

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
442 Words | 2 Pages

• Florida v. Powell - Kevin D. Powell was convicted in a Florida state court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Mr. Powell appealed arguing that his Miranda warning was invalid because the written form used by the Tampa police at his arrest did not explicitly indicate that he had a right to an attorney at his questioning. The court of appeals agreed and reversed the conviction. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that informing a defendant that he has the right to “talk with an attorney” is not sufficient to inform him of his right to have counsel

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
300 Words | 2 Pages

After hearing the appeal and analyzing all the facts provided by the petitioner, Miranda, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda and “reversed

Read More
1193 Words | 5 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona Bashlor, 1 Miranda v. Arizona: Rights of the Accused Lauren Bashlor Liberty High School AP Government 3AB The U.S. Supreme Court?s compromise in the Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court case referred to three different court cases aside from Miranda v. Arizona case. Each of the three different court cases involved the rights of the accused individuals (U.S Courts, 2015a). Miranda v. Arizona court case dealt with an individual being accused of kidnapping and raping a young woman. Miranda had been questioned and interrogated by the police, he also confessed and signed a written confession during the interrogation, without being read his rights and especially his right to a lawyer and if he could not afford one then one would be given to him (U.S Courts, 2015b). Miranda v. Arizona established that an individual being accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and anything you say can be used against you in the court of law.

Read More
538 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals vs. Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vs. Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California vs. Stewart. In the outcome of the case we now use the Miranda Rights which are as followed "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

Read More
1163 Words | 5 Pages

In 1966, an influential court case occurred – one that would shape the United States to improve the justice system. Ernesto Miranda was accused for crimes and identified by the victim, after which he was then interrogated. Miranda orally confessed to a crime and signed a written confession; however, he did not request a lawyer, nor was he advised of his right to have one present. Due to the inadequate constitutionality of the situation, Miranda was able to challenge the Supreme Court in this conviction. The ruling in Miranda represents the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise of self-incrimination by offering protection in statements, reinforcing the Fifth Amendment, and the equity of suspects during interrogation.

Read More
1530 Words | 7 Pages

After Miranda’s trial and conviction, his lawyers appealed stating Miranda’s confession was forced. The case went to the Supreme Court with three others (O’Brien 1103). 3. Questions of the Court Do police violate the Fifth Amendment if they fail to tell the suspect of his rights to silence and counsel? 4.

Read More
1638 Words | 7 Pages

When I think of the judicial system, I think of power and final decision making. In a sense, that concept can be scary. However, the judicial system by no means has as much power as one might think, and we can thank the Bill of Rights for that. Specifically, the 6th amendment is what protects us in a court of law. The 6th amendment sets boundaries and rules for trying and convicting a citizen of the United States, and that is why it is so beneficial to us.

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

The Sixth Amendment right states that a Criminal Defendant, Miranda, has the right to a public trial with unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury,

Read More
505 Words | 3 Pages

Double jeopardy is subjecting of a person to a second trial or punishment for the same offense (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The essential procedural safeguard in the Fifth Amendment will be the protection against forced self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment provides criminals the right not to testify or take the witness stand without his or her on will. Miranda rights are any confession obtained by a person before they have been read their rights and cannot hold it against them in a court of law (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Next, in all criminal prosecutions for The Sixth Amendment, depending on the state and district where a crime is committed, the indicted individual can take the preference of a speedy trial by an unbiased jury, only in federal court.

Read More
1139 Words | 5 Pages

Miranda stating that Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the Phoenix Police Department, because there was not a lawyer present when he was being interrogated. The sixth amendment states, “ the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. It has been most visibly tested in a series of cases involving terrorism, but much more often figures in cases that involve for jury selection or the protection of witnesses, including victims of sex crimes as well as witnesses in need of protection from retaliation” (Sixth Amendment). Two weeks after the state of Arizona responded by stating that Miranda's rights had not been violated, When he was being interrogated and gave his full confession, he signed the form saying he understood his rights ("Ernesto

Read More

More about Case Summary Of The Miranda V. Arizona Brief Case

Open Document