ipl-logo

Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

682 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda vs.arizona

“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.”-Chief Justice Warren (landmarkcases.org). In March of 1963 an eighteen year old woman was assaulted. The suspect was interrogated without being read his rights. Due to the fact of not being read his rights the Fifth and Sixth Amendment was created. Since the Miranda V. Arizona case has been adopted the way U.S. government has helped mold the nation’s justice system by introducing the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.
In March of 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, a resident by the name of Ernesto Miranda sexually assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed an eighteen year old woman as she was on her way home from her usual bus stop. Just days after the incident, the victim reported the events which unfolded that night to the Phoenix police department. The following day, the woman and her cousin were driving by her usual bus stop and noticed the car that abducted her; she quickly called the police and reported the …show more content…

He got in touch to a very distinguished Arizona trial lawyer John J. Flynn, who decided to take over the case with the assistance of John P. Frank, they appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On the behalf of Miranda, Frank wrote, “The day is here to recognize the full meaning of the sixth amendment.” (Frank). The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of a suspect to a lawyer. In addition to the Fifth Amendment protects defendants from being forced to incriminate themselves. Although Miranda wrote on a paper stating that he was aware of his legal rights. His lawyers are claiming that he was not in fact fully aware of his legal rights so his confession should not be deemed valid to be used against him in

Show More
Related
531 Words | 3 Pages

Case Brief Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: The Miranda warning, which informs criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney while they are in police custody or being questioned in a detention facility, was created by the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was brought by Ernesto Miranda, who was detained under the charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. He wasn't told of his right to an attorney or the right to remain silent before being questioned by the police, so Miranda admitted to the crimes while being interviewed. The confession was admitted into evidence during the trial, and Miranda was found guilty. Procedural History: After Miranda was convicted, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court who reaffirmed his rights had not been violated.

Read More
94 Words | 1 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona is a very popular criminal case, it occurred in 1966. Miranda v. Arizona is a case where a man, Ernesto Miranda, was charged for rape, kidnapping and robbery. When he was sent to interrogation the police officers did not advise him about his rights as criminal. Thanks to Ernesto Miranda, officers must say the rights we have when being arrested, these rights are called The Miranda Rights. However, Ernesto Miranda was an eighth grade dropout, at the age of 22 he kidnapped and raped a mildly retarded 18 year old

Read More
870 Words | 4 Pages

The party of Arizona argued that his rights had never been violated, thus making his confession valid. They stated that, Miranda had signed off on the confession, therefore he was fully aware of his rights and decided to wave them. I believe that the most persuasive point made in this case is the fact that you cannot use information obtained by not informing a person of their constitutional rights in trial because if it weren’t for their lack of awareness they may not have received the intel in the first

Read More
587 Words | 3 Pages

David Joseph Solis Prof. Richard Manderfield WRA 115, Section 001 October 7 2015 Miranda v. Arizona, a Spark of Democracy In 1966, a Supreme Court ruling became one of the most important cases that are studied in today’s history classes. Miranda v. Arizona, a case that began when Ernesto Miranda confessed to the authorities that he indeed, raped a teenage female. Even though Miranda did not know his rights nor was he informed of them, he signed a confession where it stated that he knew his rights. The Miranda v. Arizona case did not only establish the Miranda rights, but became a symbol of democracy; an important cultural value in the United States.

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

“Miranda written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty ("Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona," n.d.). Miranda v. Arizona: After Miranda's conviction was revoked by the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, Miranda's admission was not brought into evidence. Miranda was indeed indicted and condemned to 20-30 years in jail.

Read More
1163 Words | 5 Pages

In 1966, an influential court case occurred – one that would shape the United States to improve the justice system. Ernesto Miranda was accused for crimes and identified by the victim, after which he was then interrogated. Miranda orally confessed to a crime and signed a written confession; however, he did not request a lawyer, nor was he advised of his right to have one present. Due to the inadequate constitutionality of the situation, Miranda was able to challenge the Supreme Court in this conviction. The ruling in Miranda represents the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise of self-incrimination by offering protection in statements, reinforcing the Fifth Amendment, and the equity of suspects during interrogation.

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
1745 Words | 7 Pages

citizens and their rights that have been granted to them in the amendments of the constitution. All U.S. citizens are treated equally and all have the same rights that authorities must give them in order for them to be arrested or detained for violating rights that they never were stated. In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona case exercised the rights of the amendments for a man that didn’t know his rights because the police never told him so he won his case and was freed because he was never told his rights. Miranda v. Arizona was closely related to the case Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). Falk stated that the appeal of the Arizona Supreme Court ruling was made possible because the earlier decision.

Read More
1177 Words | 5 Pages

Miranda was arrested for the crimes of kidnapping and rape. These are very serious crimes and allegations. Just because an officer did not tell the individual those four lines of the Miranda rights everything is inadmissible. It should not be inadmissible if the individual committed these crimes and it is proven through confession or evidence such as DNA from a rape test they should be held accountable! The individual made decision and committed a crime and the officer simply didn’t advise him or her of his rights so now that person goes free.

Read More
696 Words | 3 Pages

However, the opposing counsel argued that Miranda was familiar to police procedures and willingly signed the written confession. Miranda’s conviction was consistent with Arizona law and his trial was

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
524 Words | 3 Pages

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 ruled that Ernesto Miranda is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against

Read More
471 Words | 2 Pages

For example, in the case Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested and the officer did not read him his rights, like the right to remain silent. As a result, he eventually produced a written and signed confession to the crime. This case expanded our 5th and 6th

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
94 Words | 1 Pages

The sixth amendment gives any citizen in the United States of America, the rights to a legal counsel when accused of a crime. When Ernesto was arrested and was interrogated for over two hours, he was never told once about his rights to an attorney. Then it allowed the police to receive a confession out of him to use in court, which also valuated the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment say that a person can not be a witness to themselves, which means that Ernesto confession was not valid evidence to us in court.

Read More

More about Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document