Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Miranda rights analysis
Miranda rights analysis
Custodial interrogation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Miranda rights analysis
Miranda rights analysis
Custodial interrogation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Miranda rights analysis
Can the confession Miranda gave be used in trial against him? In a 5-4 decision, the court determined that in order for an interrogation and the statements made on behalf of the defendant to be considered as evidence, and in order to protect the accused, the accused needs to be aware of the fact that he/she has the right to an attorney, aware of self incrimination, and will need to voluntarily give up their right to these things if they choose to do so. In this case it was decided that it was not acceptable to use the confession Miranda made against him, and his rights were violated. If any of these criteria are not met, any statements made during an interrogation cannot be used against the defendant, otherwise their rights would be violated. This case is very significant because it changed the way officers perform their duties, and all accused must be read their miranda
Rachel Ortiz- Wynne Ms. Bonner Forensic Science Date assigned: 4 October 2017 Date due: 17 October 2017 Miranda v. Arizona The case of Miranda versus the state of Arizona started out when Ernesto Miranda was arrested. The crime committed was an armed robbery, kidnap and rape of an 18 year old girl.
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.
Upon arrival Miranda was identified by the victim and subjected to two hours of interrogation. Upon the completion of the interrogation Miranda made an oral confession and signed a written statement. The statement signed by Miranda stated that the confession obtained was done so voluntarily and with full knowledge of his constitutional rights. At trial Miranda's confession was admitted as evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping.
Dunaway v. New York 442 U.S. 200 (1979), (Detention for interrogation). Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), (reviewed the application of unreasonable seizures). References; Joe HAYES v. FLORIDA, 470 U.S. 811, 105 S. Ct. 1643, 84 L. Ed. 2d 705
After a twelve-hour interrogation, Brenton Butler confessed to the murder of Mary Ann Stephens. A key claim made by the defense attorneys in this case was that this was a false confession, and after reaching a verdict of not guilty, the jury clearly agreed. The factors that led the false confession were laid out in a scene during the documentary. Instead of using the interview to discover the truth, the interrogators specifically sought out a confession from the suspect. They began the interrogation with the presumption that Brenton Butler was guilty.
Dominique was pulled over and due to the possibility of intoxication and was brought to the Bar Harbor police station. Without being read his Miranda rights he was placed into an intoxilyzer room. While the police officer was setting up the equipment Dominique exclaimed “It’s not going to work” pg. 2 which the officer replied to saying “No?” and he answered “No, [be]cause I had two beers in an hour…” and explained why he thinks it wouldn’t work because he had experience with law enforcement in his family. After the police officer got all of his general information i.e. his address, vehicle, and other information. After he explained the test and Dominique “I’m not going to blow into [the machine] pg.
The Supreme Court's choice in Miranda v. Arizona tended to four unique cases including custodial cross examinations. In each of these cases, the accused was addressed by cops or an indicting lawyer in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the accused given a full and compelling cautioning of his rights at the start of the cross examination process. In every case, the scrutinizing evoked oral confirmations and, in three of them, signed statements that were conceded at trial. “Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness.
In this case, those tactics were pushed to the extreme. The interrogators showed complete dominance in order for Miranda to confess. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation declares, “He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). In this examination, the rudiments of investigations over-stepped their “dominance” and nearly forced a confession. The accused must be informed of their rights to avoid this mistreatment, otherwise the person suspected is practically compelled to speak, even though they might not do so normally (Document G).
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).
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.
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).
As indicated, persons taken into police custody and considered as suspects must be Mirandized. Additionally, those persons who have previously undergone interrogation and officers wish to re-engage must be Mirandized prior to each subsequent interrogation; this would include those who are charged with and interrogated/questioned with a different charge or different agency. Likewise, any person being officially detained or not free to leave would be issued Miranda warnings including those who may be questioned in places other than a police station. Usually, shot encounters with officers on the street or traffic stops do not elicit a Miranda warning.
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.
The Miranda is still today made only optional depending on some cases and how bad the situation is, like when it relates to putting other people in