ipl-logo

Ernesto Miranda Case Study

835 Words4 Pages

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for a rape, robbery and kidnaping charge, after the victim had pointed him out in a line up. Although he had allegedly admitted to the crime, he was not made aware of his rights. Miranda hadn’t finished the ninth grade, and had a history of mental instability had no counsel present during that time. His prosecution relied solely on his confession, and he was convicted, the court gave him 20 to 30 years in prison. He had appealed to the Arizona court, claiming that the police had gotten his confession unconstitutionally. However; the court disagreed and withheld Miranda’s sentence, but reviewed the case again in 1966.

The supreme court by a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled …show more content…

This and other forms of intimidation, kept by the Court, stripped criminal suspects of their basic liberties and often times lead to false confessions. The defendant's right to an attorney is an equally fundamental right. Mainly because the presence of an attorney in interrogations, according to Chief Justice Warren, enables "the defendant under otherwise compelling circumstances to tell his story without fear, effectively, and in a way that eliminates the evils in the interrogations process." If it wasn’t for these two fundamental rights, in which the Court ruled, "dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings," "no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free …show more content…

These mandatory "Miranda Rights" begin with "the right to remain silent," and continue with the statement that "anything said can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law." It goes on to say that "anything said can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law." The police are then told to inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for (or, if necessary, provide for) a defendant's attorney who can accompany him during interrogations.

However; none of these rights was afforded to Ernesto Miranda and his "confession" was thus unconstitutionally admitted at trial, his conviction was reversed. Miranda was later retried and convicted without the admission of his confession. Miranda v. Arizona, created the "Miranda Rights" we misuse today. It was in a way backlash at the increasing police powers of the state with the basic rights of individuals. Miranda remains good helper of the law

Show More
Related
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
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
783 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
667 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda argued the police had violated his fifth amendment, which states his right to remain silent, and his sixth amendment being the right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored the Escobedo Rule, which is evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession and therefore void in a court of law. His conviction was faulty and Miranda deserved a new trial. He was tried again by the State of Arizona and was found guilty of kidnapping and rape for twenty to thirty years, depending on behavior. Arizona’s arguments claimed that Ernesto Miranda knew all about the police procedures and he negotiated with police officers with immense intelligence and understanding.

Read More
531 Words | 3 Pages

Case Brief Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: The Miranda warning, which informs criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney while they are in police custody or being questioned in a detention facility, was created by the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was brought by Ernesto Miranda, who was detained under the charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. He wasn't told of his right to an attorney or the right to remain silent before being questioned by the police, so Miranda admitted to the crimes while being interviewed. The confession was admitted into evidence during the trial, and Miranda was found guilty. Procedural History: After Miranda was convicted, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court who reaffirmed his rights had not been violated.

Read More
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
794 Words | 4 Pages

Based on his confession, which he gave without being aware of his rights, Miranda was convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court concurred, concluding that Miranda had not been properly informed of his constitutional rights by the authorities. There were major issues

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

Read More
702 Words | 3 Pages

Oh yeah your Miranda rights. These are rights given to you; the free people of the United States, declaring by the Fifth Amendment that while you are being detained by a police officer they have to read your rights to you which is… You have the right to remain silence. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney and have the right to have one during interrogation. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you by the government expense.

Read More

More about Ernesto Miranda Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document