ipl-logo

Miranda Rights

1747 Words7 Pages

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you…” These words have been used during arrests since the late 1960’s, although most people are familiar with the first line, “You have the right to remain silent,” the rest of the speech is essential to making an arrest. The Miranda rights, or Miranda warnings, are rights printed on cards that are read by police officers before arrests. These warnings come from a famous case in 1966 called Miranda v. Arizona, in which a man was arrested without knowing his rights. This is a direct violation of the Constitution because he wasn’t told …show more content…

Prior to this, his girlfriend, Twila Hoffman, had her car’s license recognized by a rape victim’s brother. The victim, Ann Jameson, recognized Ernesto in a police lineup a few days later as the man who assaulted her (Landmark Cases of the Supreme Court, Ernesto Miranda). He was officially charged for robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a handicapped woman. (Legal Cultural Literacy Test, Ernesto Miranda) After being identified, Ernesto was interrogated for two hours until finally signing a confession. (United States Courts, Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona) Yet, during his interrogation he was not aware of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer, despite what his written and signed confession stated. (Cornell Legal Information Institute Fifth …show more content…

He only served a third of his sentence and, after requesting five times, he received parole in 1972. Eventually he returned to jail for different crimes. (http://www.nndb.com/people/596/000125221/) While working as a delivery driver, he made a living by autographing Miranda Warnings for 1.50$ after prison. At the age of 34 he was declared dead in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. The cause of death was a stab wound, which happened during a bar fight in 1976, ten years after the Supreme Court ruling.

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
581 Words | 3 Pages

Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”(Riley 82).

Read More
642 Words | 3 Pages

Thirteen years, seven months and thirteen days. That is the time Lawrence Rubin Montoya spent in prison for a crime he did not commit. Montoya was sentenced to life in prison in November 2000 after he was allegedly pressured by Denver police officers into confessing to murdering a Denver school teacher. In June 2014, his conviction was overturned thanks to DNA retesting of evidence. Now, the 31 year old is suing the city of Denver and members of the city’s police department in federal court for $30 million, citing the interrogation process and later failures by the District Attorney’s office.

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
607 Words | 3 Pages

Introduction How would you feel if you incriminated yourself because you were not advised of your rights? In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours before providing a written confession to kidnap and rape. The cops not only failed and tricked Miranda by never advising him of his rights, but the jury and the Supreme Court of Arizona also failed him. Miranda's case had a huge impact on law enforcement and the future of law enforcement to this day.

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
898 Words | 4 Pages

He was sentenced to 15 life terms, for a total of 957 years in prison. During his prison time he was attacked twice, the first attempt was someone sliced his throat with a razor and only left scars, however the second attack killed him, he died on the way to the hospital from severe head trauma on November 28, 1994 in Portage, Wisconsin (“Jeffrey

Read More
376 Words | 2 Pages

If a person choses to waive their rights, they will not have the legal consultation of an attorney to help guide them through the interrogation process. With the flood of emotions that the suspect may be feeling, there are

Read More
972 Words | 4 Pages

Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1999) Procedural History The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court convicted and sentenced the defendant for crimes he committed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA).

Read More
632 Words | 3 Pages

Having police require to remind arrested citizens of their Constitutional rights is fundamental. Without the Miranda Rights citizens might not know the rights the Bill of Rights grants every citizen.

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.

Read More
501 Words | 3 Pages

The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

Read More
948 Words | 4 Pages

The Fourth Amendment affirms that "people are secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, no Warrants shall issue, describe the place to search, and the persons or things to be seized. " There should be a warrant for everything if what a person is being charged for is risking their rights as a U.S citizen. For example the privacy of a citizen is safe under the Fourth Amendment. Second, the property belonging to U.S citizens is secure from search and seizure without a warrant. Third, due to the Fourth Amendment, any citizen is safe from unfair arrests.

Read More
1230 Words | 5 Pages

The right to a miranda warning also takes place in both the juvenile and adult systems. The miranda warning also known as the miranda rights is the right to silence said by a police officer to the person being taken into

Read More

More about Miranda Rights

Related Topics

Open Document