ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

272 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda vs arizona supreme court ruling

Facts: In this case, a 23-year-old man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix, Arizona, and taken to the police station for questioning about a rape and kidnapping. The police questioned him for two hours, and were able to get a written confession out of Miranda. The confession was used in court as evidence during the trial. Miranda was found guilty of rape and kidnapping and was sentenced between twenty to thirty years in prison for each count. The Arizona Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and Miranda’s case was sent to the U.S Supreme Court.
Legal Issue: If police should inform a suspect who is subject to a custodial interrogation of his or her constitutional rights involving self-incrimination and counsel prior to questioning for the evidence obtained to be admissible in court during a trial? (Miranda v. Arizona). …show more content…

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.

Show More
Related
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
872 Words | 4 Pages

In the case of Missouri vs. Seibert lies many liable facts within the case. Some of the relevant facts is that a woman named Patrice Seibert along with accomplices which includes her son and his friends, sets their mobile home on fire with the dead body of her 12-year-old son along with a mentally ill 17-year-old Donald Rector whom was living in the household, and days after the fire, Seibert was interrogated by a police officer. The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first. Once she had confessed, the officer took a short break from questioning, then preceded to read her, her Miranda rights and resumed questioning after she waived those rights. The officer swayed her to reiterate the confession

Read More
531 Words | 3 Pages

This meant that the accused had to be made fully aware of his right to remain silent and given the opportunity to exercise it. These new procedural protections include warning suspects that they have the right to silence, cautioning them that anything they say can be used against them in court, and informing them that they have the right to an attorney, who can be chosen by the defendant or appointed to them if they cannot afford

Read More
551 Words | 3 Pages

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.

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
1486 Words | 6 Pages

Argument Analysis: The article“ Alito’s Attack on Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than it Seems” written by Mark Stern, a senior writer who focuses on law and court, discusses the potential issues that may arise from Justice Alito's opinions and the Supreme Court's decision to take steps towards overruling Miranda v. Arizona. The conservative majority ruling in the Vega v. Tekoh decision resulted in a court ruling to declare that suspects who are being taken into custody no longer have the conditional right to be read their Miranda rights. Stern argues that this decision reduces the safeguards and protection against involuntary confessions, reduces the potential assistance for wrongly convicted inmates, and is likely to result in further attacks

Read More
440 Words | 2 Pages

The Supreme Court stated that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not ask to hear them(Miranda v. Arizona). By not hearing all of his rights Miranda would not be able to successfully win the trial. Even though Miranda wrote his confession under the statement saying that he was completely aware of his rights, his lawyers argued that his rights were not fully explained to him. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 under Earl Warren. They agreed that Miranda’s confessions could not be used as evidence in the crime because

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
1588 Words | 7 Pages

One of the most important Supreme Court cases throughout history was that of Miranda vs. Arizona. The case was seen to prove that the confession of Ernesto Miranda in 1963 was inadmissible as evidence because Miranda was not informed of his rights. This case came at the same time as a national push for individual rights and civil liberties. The 1960’s were a decade predicated on increasing awareness of police misconduct and abuse of power. During this period, there was also a growing feeling that suspects were often treated unfairly by both law enforcement and the court system.

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
814 Words | 4 Pages

The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that 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 ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate

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
554 Words | 3 Pages

The Miranda rights must be read to anyone being detained and questioned by law enforcement. It became law that these rights must be read for any interrogation while the accused is in custody. There is a difference between be detained and willingly going to the police station. If they person volunteers to go in for questioning, they are not awarded the same

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

Miranda Vs. Arizona On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his home in Phoenix, Arizona in regards to a rape and kidnapping. After a two hour interrogation, the police had finally gained a confession from Ernesto.

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

More about Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document