ipl-logo

Essay On Miranda Vs Arizona

1213 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda v arizona research paper

Miranda vs. Arizona Introduction The Supreme Court case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) was a significant case for both law enforcement agencies and the citizens of America. This case would be the milestone that changed how law enforcement agencies handled citizens that were being detained for crimes that were committed. The results from this case have been constantly reviewed and gained further information on how the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are interpreted. While this was not the first case that brought up violations of Constitutional Rights, this case would set a standard that future Supreme Court Justices would have to uphold. Background Ernesto Miranda was a Mexican-American citizen working and living in Arizona. He was convicted …show more content…

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. There was dissent among Justices John Marshall Harlan II and Byron White, while Justice Tom C. Clark had partial dissent and concurrence of the case. Justice Clark used the “totality of the circumstances” test that was enunciated in the Haynes vs. Washington case to convince the other justices that the Phoenix police department had wrongfully received incriminating statements from Ernesto Miranda. While these Justices had varied reasons for their position, the decision would ultimately bring an immediate change to the current policy of interrogation that police departments …show more content…

The results from the trial remained the same; however the way the police now handled people that were under arrest changed. One of the biggest changes is what we now know as our Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are required to be given to everyone in the United States. As Washington, E. (2005) states, “In Miranda, the Court held that before a lawful arrest, the police have to read to the suspect "his rights" which is the following statement: You have a right to remain silent. Anything that you say, can and will be used against you. You have a right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, one will be provided for you, etc …” The only difference is in the wording from state to state, but they are essentially the same warning given to a person under arrest. One of the most interesting things about the Miranda Rights was the fact that they were handed to officers on cards and some officers even had Ernesto Miranda “autograph” them for a small payment. There were multiple issues that were faced when dealing with Miranda Rights. As Gillard, Rogers, Kelsey, and Robinson (n.d.) states, “Close to five decades after this landmark decision, fundamental questions continue to arise about suspects’ comprehension of these rights.” Two cases in 2010, Florida vs. Powell and Berghuis v. Thompkins showed that there are various ways that these Miranda

Show More
Related
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
688 Words | 3 Pages

Decision: Three court cases revered, and one court case affirmed. The court reviewed the writ dealing with the Fifth Amendment and suspects rights during interrogation. In order for a confession to be admissible in court a suspect must be advised of their constitutional rights. Comments: Miranda v. Arizona is considered to be a landmark court case. Its final decision came down to a 5-4 majority vote in favor of the suspects.

Read More
305 Words | 2 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona In 1966 Ernest Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. After a 2 hour interrogation he was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He confessed all of this without being read his rights. The police did not read him his rights that are stated in the 5th amendment.

Read More
174 Words | 1 Pages

Ernesto Miranda, was an immigrant that lived in Phoenix, Arizona. He was accused of kidnap and rape by a woman and arrested in 1963. While the police questioned him, they did not inform him of the Fifth Amendment (protection of self-incrimination) and the Sixth Amendment (right to an attorney). This case involved Mr. Chief Justice Warren, Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan (accompanied by Mr. Justice Stewart), and Mr. Justice White. The court argued upon this case on February 28-March 1, 1966.

Read More
1528 Words | 7 Pages

After the written confession was introduced as evidence and tried in the court case. Miranda’s case then appealed to the Supreme Court, where he stated that he would have never confessed if he would have been read his rights, and given an attorney like he asked. He didn’t argue that his confession was false or coerced, but he did argue that his rights were not read and request for an attorney was denied multiple times. (Greenwood, 5.5) Lawyers from Arizona then proceeded to say that he had not requested for a lawyer nor did he attempt when being interrogated. They also added to that by saying his confession was freely given.

Read More
442 Words | 2 Pages

• Missouri v. Seibert- (2004) A decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession. • Moran v. Burbine- (1986) the respondent was apprehended by police for murder. While in custody, but before any arraignment proceedings, the respondent waived his right to counsel and confessed to the crimes.

Read More
1106 Words | 5 Pages

In my court case in 1963 Ernesto Arturo Miranda is being accused of kidnapping, and raping. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, saying that the police had gotten his confession unconstitutionally. The U.S Supreme Court review the case in 1966. Chief Justice Earl Warren, said that the confession could not be used as evidence because the evidence was gotten unconstitutionally. Miranda was not told that he had rights like the fifth and sixth amendment so he did not know, that is why the confession was not used as evidence.

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
1089 Words | 5 Pages

Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that ‘‘procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination’’ are followed. ‘‘Interrogation while being unable to communicate with the rest of the world is at odds with one of our Nation’s most cherished principles – that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.’’ Ernesto Miranda was not apprised of his right to consult an attorney which conflicts the ‘‘fundamental fairness’’ standards the Court has established. Judicial fairness influenced the judge’s decision. The prestige built up by the American justice system on how fairness and equality play a large part on how court hearings are done.

Read More
925 Words | 4 Pages

The Justices in the majority vote was Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan and Fortas. The majority opinion was that any defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their rights against self-incrimination and be giving the opportunity for an attorney before being interrogated when in the custody of the state. Anything said by the defendant in custody, freely, may be used in a court hearing. In the court they also ruled that police must inform defendant of their rights before they are taken into custody. There are 4 things they must inform the defendant of: 1) that they have the right to remain silent 2) that anything they say can be used against them in court 3) that they have the right to an attorney, either retained by them or appointed by the court 4) that they may waive any of these

Read More
663 Words | 3 Pages

One of the most recent controversial topics sweeping the nation is on the topic of police brutality. Victims of police abuse tend to state that their rights had been violated. As a result, usually if there had been a violation of an individual’s rights, then the evidence seized by the police against that person becomes admissible. However, the idea of punishment for police officers who violate the rights of the people was never implemented into the Constitution. This concept was created by the Supreme Court through many cases.

Read More
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
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
694 Words | 3 Pages

The police practice of carding is fundamentally perceived as a race and class issue that has come to define a tumultuous relationship between police and people of colour from the past to modern-day, causing a mistrust in police and the system. The practice of police stops allow police to operate in a grey area by obtaining evidence and information through psychological intimidation, many times directed to youth. The recent call for legislation and accountability of police has brought the issue to the forefront of media and public concern. There have been many police and community based investigations on the practice, one being the Police and Community Engagement Review (PACER). PACER stipulated that the police were going to go forward

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 Essay On Miranda Vs Arizona

Open Document