The reason each of those amendments was brought up was to show that the Constitution was the first step to individual rights. However, as you may have noticed before the Miranda decision, the Constitution covered many rights of those accused. Those rights were mainly used inside the courtroom; not when the individual’s were being arrested and interrogated. This then led to police abuse in interrogating situations; the suspects then felt that they had to say anything just to make the law enforcement officials feel like they are being compliant (Sonneborn, 2004) This then would often lead to false confessions.
Before the Miranda v. Arizona case occurred, multiple Supreme Court cases came about that developed in revisions to the rights of the accused that were originally stated in the Constitution. In 1936, Brown v. MS and Powell v. Alabama were two very important cases leading up to Miranda. The importance of Brown v. MS stated the use of involuntary confessions was prohibited (Harr, 2014). Powell v. Alabama justified “That a defendant must have the right to counsel during any federal or state trial involving the death penalty” (Harr, 2014).
…show more content…
NY in 1959 made it illegal that confessions that were made because of law enforcement officials tricking the accused were not considered good enough evidence to prosecute. Four years later in the case of 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright gave the right to defendants allowing them the right to counsel during any federal or state felony cases (Harr, 2014). Such as, robbery, murder, rape, or other major crimes. One year later in 1964, Escobedo v. Illinois changed the right to counsel laws. This allowed the accused to possess counsel not only during the trial, but during the interrogation as well (Harr,