ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Case

1680 Words7 Pages

The United States constitution is a document that, although it’s over 200 years old, still makes up the foundations of the United States government. The only reason it’s possible for a country to maintain a set of laws for 200 years is because the Supreme Court is allowed to make amendments to these laws as needed. This makes the constitution a living document. Throughout history, some of the country’s most famous court cases have been responsible for these amendments. One major case that affected the U.S. Constitution was Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. This case created huge changes in the protection of Fifth Amendment rights. The reason this case went to the Supreme Court is because Ernesto Miranda, the defendant, incriminated himself during …show more content…

Miranda was arrested for kidnapping, robbery, and rape. He wasn’t told his rights before the police questioned him. He also had a history of mental instability and didn’t have a completed high school education. Miranda confessed to committing the crimes after several hours of questioning and no lawyer present. He was given a sentence of 20 to 30 years for kidnapping and rape. He was convicted almost solely on his confession (pbs.org). This happened because he had no understanding of his rights and the police either didn’t care or weren’t aware of that fact. He appealed his conviction based on violation of his fifth and sixth amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of …show more content…

The case of People v. Tanner, decided on June 23, 2014, is an example of a case in which the accused felt their Miranda rights were violated. On October 17, 2011, George Tanner was arrested for murder, read his Miranda Rights, and taken to jail. He then asked for counsel and to stop questioning until he had a lawyer. While talking to a psychologist shortly after, he said he wanted “to get something off his chest”. The psychologist informed the administrator of the jail and they called in a lawyer so they could speak to him. Tanner was re-read his Miranda Rights, but this time he waived them. Unknown to Tanner, there was already an attorney there to assist him. Instead of bringing the attorney in, police first went in to ask Tanner a couple of questions. During these questions, he incriminated himself by giving details linking him to the murder. Tanner was charged with open murder (MCL 750.316) and mutilation of a dead body (MCL 750.160) (scholar.google.com). When he tried to appeal this decision, on the basis that his Miranda Rights were violated, the Supreme Court ruled against him. The Supreme Court ruled against Tanner because his rights were never violated. He willingly waived his rights and told police the information which led to his arrest. There is no part of the Fifth Amendment which states that the

Show More
Related
529 Words | 3 Pages

The conviction was based off of the confession Miranda gave and the eyewitness identification of him by the victim. After Miranda was convicted, he was represented by different lawyers in front of the supreme court and they argued that the police questioning/interrogating without an attorney present violated Miranda’s fifth and sixth amendment rights, and therefore should not be able

Read More
1196 Words | 5 Pages

The decision of The Supreme court for Miranda V. Arizona addressed 4 separate trials. In the Miranda V. Arizona trial while he was being questioned he had no contact with the outside world. In the trial he was not told all of his rights. The questioning brought about oral statements, three of which, were signed statements that were disclosed at trial. Miranda was arrested at his house where he was then taken to the police station, and identified by an witness.

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Decision: Three court cases revered, and one court case affirmed. The court reviewed the writ dealing with the Fifth Amendment and suspects rights during interrogation. In order for a confession to be admissible in court a suspect must be advised of their constitutional rights. Comments: Miranda v. Arizona is considered to be a landmark court case. Its final decision came down to a 5-4 majority vote in favor of the suspects.

Read More
783 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout this case the supreme court addressed four other cases that involved custodial interrogations. Issues involving this case is whether or not the Fifth Amendment, which gives us the right to self-incrimination, is being violated when someone is put under arrest and is brought in for the purpose of interrogation and is not informed of his rights to not speak

Read More
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
528 Words | 3 Pages

Throughout the 1900s, the critical motion of the Civil Rights Movement greatly influenced society. The various cases that were introduced in courts impacted the fight for equality as well as the creation of stronger laws. A powerful case in this era was Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, a man that confessed to accusations was set free because he was not advised of his rights to remain silent and request a lawyer. The ruling of this case shows the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination by showing the importance of the Fifth Amendment, the signifcance of the right to an attorney, and that under the law, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Read More
713 Words | 3 Pages

Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, stating that when a person is taken into police custody, before being interrogated he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statement (Criminal.findlaw.com, 2017). When in the police custody they have to tell you the four things before being questioned about anything. Having to be questioned a suspect in custody devoid of having given the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is supposed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. The law requires that officers read Miranda rights to a suspect in custody prior to their questioning or interrogation (Criminal.findlaw.com, 2017).For saying the Miranda rights it informs the suspect that he/she have the right to remain silent, that anything he

Read More
861 Words | 4 Pages

There were a lot of amendments that were looked into during this case but the couple that mostly stood out were fifth and sixth amendments because they supported Miranda’s attorney and had not been told to Miranda while the whole integration period or before that time. The court made his final decision by ruling the case unconstitutional because it violated miranda’s

Read More
1392 Words | 6 Pages

Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 4 Ohio Misc. 197, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (U.S.Ill. 1964) , because this case set the precedent for future cases to guarantee any suspect their constitutional rights upon arrest.

Read More
440 Words | 2 Pages

Without knowing these rights people would have less of a chance of winning the trial. The Miranda v. Arizona case helped people to understand their rights when dealing with the authorities. On March 13, 1963, a eighteen year old girl was rapes while walking to go home. A man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to a police station. Miranda was questioned by the police for two hours(Facts and Case Summary).

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

The outcome of this case made sure that every person who was arrested and put under the custody of the police had to read their Miranda rights and therefore made known of their Fifth Amendment rights. This case would change the procedure of every legal arrest from that point on, and ensure that any person under the custody of the police would be fully aware of their

Read More
794 Words | 4 Pages

In this paper, we'll talk about the background facts and information surrounding the case, the specifics of the case, the case's resolution, and whether the resolution was constitutionally sound. We will also look at how this case has affected history and how it will continue to do so in the future. For allegedly kidnapping and raping a woman in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was detained in 1963. He was not made aware of his constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, by the police when they were questioning him.

Read More
554 Words | 3 Pages

It was reviewed and overturned by The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court over turned three of the four cases, all except California v. Stewart, by a vote of 5-4. According to www.uscourts.gov, The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” With these rulings we got what we know today as Miranda rights. The Miranda rights state a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires”, according to www.uscourts.gov.

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 Vs Arizona Case

Related Topics

Open Document