Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

Chapter 13 is titled "Interrogations, Admissions, and Confessions." The case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established the Miranda warnings. This ruling requires that any statements from individuals obtained by violating that individual's Miranda rights are not admissible in court, whether or not they were obtained voluntarily from that individual. There are no specific words an individual has to say in order to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, although courts have found some phrases to be too ambiguous to invoke these rights, and many courts do not require law enforcement clarify an individual's intent. There are several psychological tactics that violate a person's due process rights. These include threats of violence; other threats (such as job termination or extension of incarceration); confinement under shockingly inhumane conditions; interrogation after lengthy, unnecessary delays; denial of necessary medical care; deprivations of food or sleep; and relay questioning over extended periods of interrogation. On the

A person's Miranda rights can be waived either expressly or impliedly. An express waiver is when someone acknowledges in some manner that they are aware of their Miranda rights and voluntarily give up those rights. An implied waiver, however, is "valid if, under the totality of circumstances, evidence shows that a suspect knew of his or her Miranda rights and then voluntarily waived them" (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten 514). Being silent does not mean that an individual has waived his or her Miranda rights, but there are certain words, gestures, or actions that can constitute waiving one's rights. Once someone has been formally charged with a crime and has made a request for an attorney, the Sixth Amendment protects defendants from officers attempting to gather incriminating evidence against them without the presence of their