ipl-logo

Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

893 Words4 Pages

“Miranda v. Arizona” is a case that was presented in the high court in the United States of America. The case addresses four distinct cases that may be considered identical. Each of the four cases involved defendants who were interrogated by the police officers, prosecuting attorney or detectives where they were forced to give information about various crimes committed as they were identified as the suspects. Miranda, who was a Mexican immigrant, was identified by a Phoenix woman as one of the perpetrators who kidnapped and raped her. This resulted to an arrest that was followed by a police interrogation that was carried out for two hours (Vander, & Kamisar, 2013). From the interrogation, Miranda accepted to have committed the crime and the police took both written and audio evidence from the suspect’s confession. The other three individuals that were presented in the case included Vignera, Westover and Stewart who were exposed to similar experiences as to that of Miranda. Each of the four individuals was engaged in a private interrogation by the police, where each of the suspects admitted to have committed the crimes. That may have been a result of police intimidation that made the suspects to admit to false allegations. …show more content…

The police, therefore, violated the Fifth Constitutional Amendment that is a right against self-incrimination. Moreover, the suspects were not allowed the right to be represented by a counsel or lawyer as bestowed upon by the Sixth Amendment. The case is important in that it resulted to a change for law enforcement in America. Prior to the time the ruling was made, police and other individuals did not inform the defendants of their constitutional rights, where they questioned them privately, therefore, violating their

Show More
Related
258 Words | 2 Pages

Brief Arizona v. Hicks 480 U.S. 321 (1987) Facts: A bullet was fired through the floor of Hick’s apartment on April 18th, 1987. The bullet injured a man in the apartment below Hick’s apartment. Police officers arrived at Hick’s apartment to investigate the shooting. Upon investigating, the police officers seized 3 weapons and a stocking mask. Also, while investigating, one of the police officers noticed expensive stereo equipment.

Read More
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
551 Words | 3 Pages

This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion. Rule of law: An individual cannot be brought to a police station and fingerprinted without probable cause or a warrant. The courts compared the cases of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721. (Investigatory detentions).

Read More
458 Words | 2 Pages

There also was no prosecution witnesses were not crossed examine. The due process was not followed, which lead to a short trial, and a quick verdict. This was the violation of the 5th Amendment because the right to due process.

Read More
528 Words | 3 Pages

There is a comfort in knowing that one has a form of representation in a situation like this, and the court argues that Miranda was under pressure during his statement. Throughout history, lawyers were available to the general public to allow the defendants a sense of ease instead of vulnerability to the police. This case shows that achieving this right would have resulted in a different outcome of Miranda’s

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

Read More
1872 Words | 8 Pages

This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all

Read More
569 Words | 3 Pages

Before the police interrogation, which lasted two hours, Miranda was not informed of his rights which therefore caused him to be interrogated without an attorney present and it led him to self-incriminate himself. The trial “ consisted solely of his confession” (Alex Mcbride n.d.) which caused the court to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, sentencing him to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda then went to the Arizona Supreme Court appealing that his confession was unconstitutionally obtained and used against him. When the court disagreed he appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where they declared the actions of law enforcement unconstitutional because they violated the constitution's fifth and sixth amendment. Because of this, Miranda's confession could not be admissible in a court of

Read More
883 Words | 4 Pages

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).

Read More
1039 Words | 5 Pages

The four cases were Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. The defendant in each of these cases were questioned by authorities and not given full and effective warning of their rights at the onset of the interrogation process. The defendants were held and not given the ability to leave at any time during the questioning and interrogation. In three of the

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

Pleading the Fifth Technology seems to come hand in hand with modernity. It has made most tasks that used to take days to complete much easier. Technology has also improved the channels of communication. The invention of the modern day smart cellphone coupled with social media networking has allowed mankind to be in constant contact with one another from across the globe.

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
1144 Words | 5 Pages

For nearly fifty years police have been reading suspects their rights because of a landmark 1966 United States Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their Constitutional right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. This protects the individual from self incrimination and if they were to speak it would be on their own free will. The United States Supreme Court has changed the way police conduct their duties to this day, while protecting an individual’s rights. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of his first crime while in eighth grade.

Read More
697 Words | 3 Pages

The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings” (Oyez). Justice Tom Clark stated that he was in favor of Arizona because there isn’t any law stating that citizens must be made aware of their rights. He also argued that the government/ police shouldn’t have to step all pressure that is applied to a suspect purely because they don’t want to be pressured. Justice White, who also voted in favor of Arizona, claimed that this case destroys all chances of any reputable

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

More about Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document