ipl-logo

Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

550 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The principle of separation of powers

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 …show more content…

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

Show More
Related
529 Words | 3 Pages

Can the confession Miranda gave be used in trial against him? In a 5-4 decision, the court determined that in order for an interrogation and the statements made on behalf of the defendant to be considered as evidence, and in order to protect the accused, the accused needs to be aware of the fact that he/she has the right to an attorney, aware of self incrimination, and will need to voluntarily give up their right to these things if they choose to do so. In this case it was decided that it was not acceptable to use the confession Miranda made against him, and his rights were violated. If any of these criteria are not met, any statements made during an interrogation cannot be used against the defendant, otherwise their rights would be violated. This case is very significant because it changed the way officers perform their duties, and all accused must be read their miranda

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda never receive notice of his rights. The second case involved an individual named Michael Vignera who was arrested for robbery. Mr. Vignera orally confessed to officers

Read More
1553 Words | 7 Pages

Any statement given can be the determining outcome of any case. It is imperative that any custodial interrogation is given upon certain circumstance dependent on the Miranda warning is it is integral part of the criminal justice system, as we know today. The rationale is also important as it provides protection for the defendants and for police and prosecutors in which is the reason Miranda warning should be invariably given regardless of

Read More
1106 Words | 5 Pages

That is the reason why they made the Miranda rights so it would help the accused and now the police are required to inform the accused what rights he or she has. In my case in Phoenix, Arizona on March, 1963 Ernesto

Read More
272 Words | 2 Pages

The court stated that the suspect must be warned before any questioning that he or she has a right to remain silent, that anything he or she says can be used against him or her in a court of law, that he or she has the right to an attorney, and if he or she cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to him or her prior to any questioning. These rights must be considered to him or her throughout the interrogation (Miranda v.

Read More
528 Words | 3 Pages

The Card informs, “You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned” (Document J). In this case, Miranda argues that he was not aware of his right to an attorney, creating him to easily confess. The court argues that if would have been aware of these rights, perhaps he would not have confessed or feel “compelled” to make a statement immediately. When being arrested, the thought of legal counciltation might not even render through ones read. If Miranda had had a lawyer present, he would be informed that he did not need to make a statement and would not “blurt” his confession (Docutment H).

Read More
306 Words | 2 Pages

The Miranda Rights, are well known to most of the public. So you wouldn’t think that you need to ask for them. The fifth amendment, read during the Miranda Rights, is that a suspect has the right to not self incriminate. In the case of Salinas, he thought he was pleading the fifth, but was surprised that really he was just admitting guilt. Genovevo Salinas, was sitting in silence when being interrogated, assuming that the police knew he was pleading the fifth.

Read More
1269 Words | 6 Pages

The position would include that the evidence from the interrogation can be used and that it is not self-incrimination. The interest is to protect the people, and convict criminals. The needs of the Supreme Court of Arizona would be safety for the people, and justice in the court. The Supreme Court’s position was that Miranda’s rights were violated.

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
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
794 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona ruling was the correct one constitutionally. Fundamental rights that must be upheld include the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination. The police shouldn't be able to coerce suspects into giving up their rights or deceive them into doing so in order to get confessions. Suspects are given Miranda warnings so they are aware of their rights and can decide for themselves whether or not to speak with the police. Therefore the decision was constitutionally correct as Miranda did not expressly request legal representation, so his constitutional rights were not infringed, the Supreme Court of Arizona said upon

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
890 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

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
702 Words | 3 Pages

Oh yeah your Miranda rights. These are rights given to you; the free people of the United States, declaring by the Fifth Amendment that while you are being detained by a police officer they have to read your rights to you which is… You have the right to remain silence. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney and have the right to have one during interrogation. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you by the government expense.

Read More

More about Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document