ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Court Case Essay

1005 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda vs arizona short essay summary of case

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). In Phoenix, Arizona, March of 1963, an immigrant named Ernesto Miranda was arrested inside his house for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female (Miranda V. Arizona). He was interrogated for two hours before officers brought in the …show more content…

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. They all got together and made a petition to get the U.S. Supreme Court involved (Legal Dictionary). They succeeded and brought the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court made a different decision than the other two courts. They had decided that Ernesto did have his rights violated due to the fact that the officers who interrogated Ernesto admitted to not advising him of his rights. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the rights that were violated fell into the 5th and 6th amendment (United States Courts). This decision was decided by only a 5-4 vote majority (Oyez). This vote was lead by Chief Justice Warren (Legal

Show More
Related
334 Words | 2 Pages

ernandez versus the state of Texas was one of the first Mexican American civil rights cases heard here by the United States Supreme Court (author, year). This case was one of the most important cases that considered Mexican Americans to be their own racial group in the United States. Pete Hernandez was a Mexican American agricultural worker, who was accused for the murder of Joe Espinosa in Edna, Texas in Jackson County (author,year). Hernandez’s lawyer knew that this was going to be a challenge since Mexican-Americans seemed to be excluded in the jury’s selection in seven counties in Texas. When on trial, Hernandez’s legal team did claim that other Mexican Americans were excluded from the jury commission.

Read More
192 Words | 1 Pages

March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. (Miranda v. Arizona 1) The case Miranda V. Arizona made it all the way to the Supreme Court where Miranda's submitted confession was voided, as the interrogators had not informed him of his rights. (Case Summary 1) With a 5-4 vote, The US Supreme Court decided from the Miranda vs. Arizona court case that by law, officers are required to inform the accused that they have the right to not answer any questions and that they have a right to counsel which, if not affordable, can be appointed for him or her by the Court.

Read More
539 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda’s attorney appealed to the U.S Supreme Court which were going to hear his case. In the Trial Court a counsel was appointed to defend him in the robbery and rape and kidnapping case. Identify the issue (IRAC): Was it the officers right to inform the suspect of his 5th and 6th amendment before interrogating him?

Read More
1386 Words | 6 Pages

The civil rights case of  Hernandez .vs. Texas was settled in The Supreme Court on the 3rd of May 1954, changing the lives of Mexican Americans everywhere. Attorneys Gus Garcia, Carlos Cardena, and John Herrera took on a case involving a Mexican man named Pete Hernandez, who was being sentenced to prison on a murder charge. The attorneys wanted to take Petes case because they believed he was being tried unfairly considering,  he was sentenced by a jury of  all Anglo people. In order for a case to be properly decided, the defendant must be questioned in front of a jury of his own peers to insure  that there will not be prejudiced in the jury's ruling.

Read More
870 Words | 4 Pages

The case was later taken to the supreme court where the previous sentence was overturned by a 5-4 vote in favor of Miranda due to the fact that his constitutional right were violated (not being informed of his rights). Besides the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, others involved in the case were people such as: the unidentified female victim,

Read More
721 Words | 3 Pages

The Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 in the case of Hernandez v. Texas was the start of a breakthrough for Mexican Americans in the United States. The case was brought to existence after Pete Hernandez was accused of murder in Jackson County, a small town called Edna, Texas. The special thing about this case that makes it significant was the jury that were including in this trial. It was said that a Mexican American hadn’t served on a jury in the county of Jackson in 25 years. With the help of a Mexican American lawyer, Gustavo Garcia, the case was brought to the highest court level and was beheld as a Violation of the constitution.

Read More
353 Words | 2 Pages

The events that led to this landmark case was due to the criminal act of Ernesto Miranda in the spring of 1963. Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for armed robbery, and for the kidnapping and raping of eighteen year old Rebecca Ann Johnson. He also had many other criminal offenses on his record. . While in police custody, Ernesto Miranda signed a confession to the crime he had committed

Read More
687 Words | 3 Pages

Arizona case stated that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning (Ortmeier, 2006). These constitution rights consisted of their right to remain silent; to be given an explanation on how anything they say can be used against them; their right to an attorney; and their right to have an attorney appointed to represent them if they cannot afford one. Additionally, Metgzar (2010) indicated without rights advisory, anything admitted by a subject in an interrogation will not be useable in there trial. The ruling also encouraged the expansion of Fifth Amendment and other constitutional

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
861 Words | 4 Pages

In March of 1963 a Mexican born immigrant named Ernesto Miranda living in the city of Phoenix, Arizona was chosen in a police lineup by an 18 year old woman who was accusing him of kidnapping and raping her. Miranda was then arrested and questioned by police for several hours before he confessed to the crimes both verbally and in writing. Miranda signed several forms when he confessed to the crimes, including one stating that his confession was completely voluntary and that he understood all his rights. But during the interrogation the police officers did not tell Miranda that he had the right to remain silent, a right granted to him by the Fifth Amendment.

Read More
1039 Words | 5 Pages

The four cases were Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. The defendant in each of these cases were questioned by authorities and not given full and effective warning of their rights at the onset of the interrogation process. The defendants were held and not given the ability to leave at any time during the questioning and interrogation. In three of the

Read More
1177 Words | 5 Pages

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” To begin with, the background and information on the case law that brought upon the Miranda rights to be read, stated, and understood by the officer to the detainee upon the apprehension of the individual. Miranda v. Arizona case law was decided in 1966 on the date of June the thirteenth. This was the established case law for other rulings to follow in holding accountability to any evidence or confession obtained without the suspect or offender being read and understanding his or her rights to the 5th amendment of “pleading

Read More
697 Words | 3 Pages

Before the case was brought to the United States Supreme Court, “Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his

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
211 Words | 1 Pages

2016 marks the nation’s fiftieth anniversary of the Miranda rights or known as the Miranda warning. The Miranda rights made a monumental impact in our country. The Miranda Rights gives suspects their acknowledgement of their rights while being taken into custody. The rights are the right to remain silent and the right to attorney. One of the rights is the right to remain silent.

Read More

More about Miranda Vs Arizona Court Case Essay

Related Topics

Open Document