ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

734 Words3 Pages

The Miranda v. Arizona Case of 1966
The Miranda v. Arizona case was a Supreme court case that was caused by an arrest that happened on March 13th, 1963. A man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home for sexual assault and kidnapping and brought into the police station for questioning. The interrogation went on for two hours when finally, police got a written confession by Miranda that he did these crimes. After police got his confession, it was later realized that Miranda wrote this confession without being informed of the right to have an attorney present while being questioned. It was ruled that Ernesto was guilty of the crimes and an appeal by the Supreme Court concluded that his rights were not violated because he did not …show more content…

It was later noticed upon an appeal to the state Supreme Court that the officer who arrested Miranda, did not state his basic rights and was affirmed. (legaldictionary.net, Procedural History). This also means that Miranda couldn’t be set free because he did not ask to have an to be attorney present. But, Miranda and other defendants with similar cases petitioned to the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate the case and to have another ruling. The overall ruling of the final case to have it mandatory to read these specific rights was passed and are vital to the process of being arrested and …show more content…

These rights are not only used when being arrested but also at the time in court where the jury gives your punishment (legalictionary.net, Reasoning). The right to have an attorney is also important to today’s legal system because it will allow a suspect to have the chance at staying innocent and being a free person. Throughout the process of ruling a sentence for a citizen, the jury deemed it okay to use trickery that was used on Miranda to obtain a confession in the questioning process. The Miranda case gives suspects a chance at acquiring a lawyer/ attorney and a fight for their

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
1005 Words | 5 Pages

This court’s decision was that Miranda’s rights were not violated (United States Courts). Ernesto wasn’t happy with this decision, so he appealed it. The Arizona Supreme Court also decided that Miranda did not have any rights violated due to the fact that Miranda supposedly never asked for an attorney (Oyez). Miranda said he had asked for one, but was denied one (Miranda V. Arizona). Miranda then found other people who had the same problem as him.

Read More
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
672 Words | 3 Pages

It limits the amount of power that authorities have on a person placed under custody. The right remain silent is given to avoid self-incrimination and to inform the person of the possible consequences if he or she decides to speak. The right to an attorney is given so that a suspect can have legal advice at any given point during custody and to ensure that the suspect’s right to remain silent or to speak under interrogation is being acknowledge by the authorities. The presence of an attorney can also reduce the probability of physical brutality from police to obtain a

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
614 Words | 3 Pages

As it states on pg.5 “The person who is in custody and subject to interrogation must be advised of the rights referred to in Miranda v Arizona in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against him or her at trial.”. The state argues that what he said was voluntary and that he was not under interrogation when he made the statement that he did about how much he had to drink. The sixth amendment states that one can’t incriminate oneself outside of Miranda rights. So anything said to the police or that the police have would be invalid because he wasn’t read and asked if he understood his rights. The fourth amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

Read More
241 Words | 1 Pages

I don’t see any Cons; only Pros with the Miranda rights, which are that it allows the person in custody to be informed of their rights, letting them know that they do not have to speak if they do not want to. That they cannot be coerced to confess to something that they don’t want to confess to, because it might not stand up in criminal proceedings; and it covers the arresting officer and if any evidence is obtained it can be used in court. I do think the police should have to read the Miranda warning in all situations. People need to be informed. Sometimes a situation can seem so small, but I think that if this warning is given in any situation the person being detained can know that they do not have to speak without an attorney present and

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
1745 Words | 7 Pages

citizens and their rights that have been granted to them in the amendments of the constitution. All U.S. citizens are treated equally and all have the same rights that authorities must give them in order for them to be arrested or detained for violating rights that they never were stated. In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona case exercised the rights of the amendments for a man that didn’t know his rights because the police never told him so he won his case and was freed because he was never told his rights. Miranda v. Arizona was closely related to the case Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). Falk stated that the appeal of the Arizona Supreme Court ruling was made possible because the earlier decision.

Read More
696 Words | 3 Pages

Ernesto Miranda, a suspect charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery, had his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights violated during a police interrogation. These injustices lead to a United States Supreme Court trial, whose outcome forever imprints our justice system. Ernesto Miranda, a resident of Phoenix, was charged for rape, kidnapping, and robbery in 1963. Miranda was identified by the victim and he was detained and interrogated by police for two hours, where he allegedly conceded to the crimes he was charged of and signed a written statement included with a typed disclaimer, without any attorney present. The police neglected to apprise Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination prior to police interrogation, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

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
928 Words | 4 Pages

The Miranda vs. Arizona court case ruled that detained criminal suspects , prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self incrimination, the case was one

Read More
769 Words | 4 Pages

With that being said, Miranda appealed the decision of Arizona and brought the case up to the highest and the court of the last resort. The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s rights were violated based on the fact that Miranda was not granted counsel. However, not only was Miranda not presented with counsel, but he was not told of his rights. He was taken from his home and was interrogated by authorities at the police station. Chief Justice Earl Warren of the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

The Sixth Amendment right states that a Criminal Defendant, Miranda, has the right to a public trial with unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury,

Read More
1055 Words | 5 Pages

Arizon was that the Court needed to decide when and how the suspects could have constitutional rights. There were so many problems in regard to this issue, for example, should the suspects keep silence all the time or just during the trial? In order to clarify these questions, the the Supreme Court released the decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warnings are established as followings: Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed (Sidlow & Henschen,

Read More

More about Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

Related Topics

Open Document