ipl-logo

Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Summary

437 Words2 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark case where Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping and was refused an attorney even after he requested one during custodial interrogation, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used because Miranda was unaware of his Fifth Amendment right to refrain from making self incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to have legal counsel, nor were his rights made known to him by investigators, even after Miranda requested legal counsel (Bethel, 2015). According to Criminal Law and Procedure, Miranda protects the suspect more than anyone else in the equation as it allows the suspect to be aware of their right to remain silent and that legal counsel is available to them if they …show more content…

If the accused refuses to answer questions or waives their right to counsel, the police can only interrogate the accused with the accused's legal counsel present as a result of Minnick v. Mississippi (Hall, 2015).Several variables are to be considered when law enforcement is conducting a custodial interrogation such as the age of the suspect, the intelligence level of the suspect, how familiar are they with the criminal justice system, and the mental and physical capacity of the suspect in terms of the crime they are suspected of committing as well as their voluntariness to waive their rights (Bethel, 2015). These variables are crucial for the prosecution as it details the suspect's characteristics and sometimes their motives for the crime they committed, and sometimes give further details than the officer anticipated, but the burden of proof lies on the prosecution's shoulders to prove the suspect waived their rights (Bethel, 2015). There are some instances where the suspect will "lawyer up" and the evidence is overwhelming, and the prosecution can elaborate the suspect refused to cooperate and refuse to reduce certain charges or offer a lesser charge for the suspect. The same applies to a suspect giving details of other details that are a violation of Miranda and cannot be used against the suspect but can be used in conjunction with other cases that are being investigated

Show More
Related

Why Is Mcculloch Vs Maryland Important

1933 Words | 8 Pages

After 1963, one would be able to have a lawyer at their side during questioning and be able to consult him/her. If the defendant was being pressured into a confession the lawyer would be able to step in. Today, when a suspect is arrested, they are read a Miranda warning, which typically follows these lines: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to speak to an attorney and have an attorney present during any questioning.

Read More

Miranda's Confession, Injustice In Pheonix, Arizona

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

Case Brief Miranda Vs Arizona

688 Words | 3 Pages

Case Citation: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Plaintiff/ Appellant State of Arizona, Defendant/ Appellee Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation.

Read More

Assignment 2: Briefing Of Miranda V. Arizona

783 Words | 4 Pages

Abstract Miranda v. Arizona took place in 1996. The case involves a Hispanic man named, Ernesto Miranda and the state of New York. Miranda is being charged with rape and kidnapping. He was held in interrogation for a lengthy amount of time until he eventually confessed. He was found guilty and the conviction was approved by the supreme court because he did not request a lawyer.

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Court Case Essay

1005 Words | 5 Pages

Ernesto Miranda was tried for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female. When they brought him in, the girl was not able to positively identify him in a lineup (Miranda V. Arizona). He was then interrogated for two hours by two of the officers that arrested him. At the end of the interrogation, Ernesto wrote and signed a confession (United States Courts). Ernesto was tried in Phoenix Arizona, but his lawyers said that the trial was unfair and that his 5th and 6th amendment rights had been violated due to the fact that Ernesto was never told his rights (Miranda V. Arizona).

Read More

Miranda V. Arizona 1966 Summary

489 Words | 2 Pages

Because Miranda was not informed of his fifth or sixth amendment, the court heard this case to clarify the procedure of making suspects aware that they have the right to an attorney as well as the right to not self incriminate. The prosecution believed he voluntarily disregarded his right to counsel as well as his right to remain silent after being informed by the police. They argued that no amendment was violated because the confession that was made by Miranda was evidence that could be used against him in court when he could have remained silent. The prosecution argued that his confession was permissible to be used as evidence in the court of his criminal case.

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Dbq

528 Words | 3 Pages

There is a comfort in knowing that one has a form of representation in a situation like this, and the court argues that Miranda was under pressure during his statement. Throughout history, lawyers were available to the general public to allow the defendants a sense of ease instead of vulnerability to the police. This case shows that achieving this right would have resulted in a different outcome of Miranda’s

Read More

Dbq Miranda Essay

1163 Words | 5 Pages

In this case, those tactics were pushed to the extreme. The interrogators showed complete dominance in order for Miranda to confess. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation declares, “He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). In this examination, the rudiments of investigations over-stepped their “dominance” and nearly forced a confession. The accused must be informed of their rights to avoid this mistreatment, otherwise the person suspected is practically compelled to speak, even though they might not do so normally (Document G).

Read More

Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

599 Words | 3 Pages

Within the court case of Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda was a poor immigrant from Mexico, who lived in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963 (Schmalleger, 2011). Miranda was accused of kidnapping and rape and was arrested after the victim of the crime recognized him in a police lineup (Schmalleger, 2011). Miranda was questioned by police while in police custody for two hours. The rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were not told to Miranda by the officers interrogating him, which are the rights against self-incrimination and right to assistance of an attorney (Harr, Hess & Orthmann, 2012). Considering Miranda was not aware of his rights, he ended up confessing to the crimes, which he was charged (Harr, Hess & Orthmann, 2012).

Read More

Miranda Warning Dbq

883 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).

Read More

Earl Warren Accomplishments

1055 Words | 5 Pages

Arizona that criminals must be informed of their rights before being prosecuted. Today, this ruling requires that police inform criminals of their right to remain silent, and that anything they say can be used against them in court. These rights, also known as Miranda rights include the criminal’s right to an attorney. If the police do not read a person’s Miranda rights when arresting a criminal, the court judging the case can discard any evidence that the criminal reveals while in police custody since he or she was not informed of their right to remain silent. While the Miranda decision was unpopular at the time, it was critical to ensuring that criminals were being persecuted for the appropriate crime on clear evidence and received the right to a fast and proper

Read More

Fifth Amendment Pros And Cons

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

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

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

Why People Wive Their Miranda Rights

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

Why Do We Obey Miranda Rights?

502 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda Rights Meaning Right to Remain Silent Lawyers during questionings Miranda Rights: More than Words

Read More

More about Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Summary

Related Topics

Open Document