ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

790 Words4 Pages

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court declared that criminal suspects being held by police must be notified of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination before police interrogation begins. Ernesto Miranda, a native of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested in 1963 on suspicion of rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The alleged kidnapping and rape victim in Phoenix, Arizona, has positively identified Mexican immigrant Ernesto Miranda from a police lineup. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda finally confessed to the crimes for which he was detained.
Question 2 A state court heard Miranda’s case, and the prosecutor used his confession as evidence. The court found Miranda guilty, and he was sentenced to between 20 and 30 …show more content…

The most important source of motivation was the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which prohibits governments from compelling their subjects to give evidence against themselves. The court also noted the precedent that was established in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), which decided that suspects have a right to have counsel present during police interrogations. This case was cited because it established that defendants have a right to have an attorney present. In addition, the court went over the significance of the 14th amendment as well as other procedural safeguards in ensuring the protection of people’s constitutional rights. The decision that was made by the court in Miranda v. Arizona was based on the legal principles that were discussed …show more content…

Arizona examined Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights in detail. The court stressed the coercive character of custodial interrogations and the risk of defendants accidentally waiving their fundamental rights. Suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and have legal representation during interrogations. The court stressed the need to clearly explain these rights to suspects so they can make informed decisions. Miranda's warnings were implemented as procedural safeguards after the analysis.
Question 6 The ruling rendered by the Supreme Court was in support of the accused party, Ernesto Miranda. The court ruled that the safeguard provided by the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination, necessitates informing individuals in custody about their rights before undergoing police interrogation (Nolan,2021, p.161). The court rendered a decision deeming Miranda’s confession as inadmissible as evidence due to its acquisition in the absence of being apprised of his entitlement to refrain from self-incrimination and to have legal counsel present.
Question

Show More
Related
667 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda argued the police had violated his fifth amendment, which states his right to remain silent, and his sixth amendment being the right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored the Escobedo Rule, which is evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession and therefore void in a court of law. His conviction was faulty and Miranda deserved a new trial. He was tried again by the State of Arizona and was found guilty of kidnapping and rape for twenty to thirty years, depending on behavior. Arizona’s arguments claimed that Ernesto Miranda knew all about the police procedures and he negotiated with police officers with immense intelligence and understanding.

Read More
539 Words | 3 Pages

Selina Ledezma Mrs. Kowalski-Garza CRIJ 3310-91L March 20, 2017 Miranda v. Arizona Brief Case Citation: 384 U.S. 436 Year Decided: 1966 Summary of the facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home in Phoenix, Arizona by two officers. He was taken to the police station where he was picked in a lineup by the victim of kidnapping and rape and later identified in a robbery case. After two hours of being interrogated Miranda confessed the crime. He was not advised of either his right to counsel, right to consult with counsel, or right to remain silent before his oral confession. Miranda was found guilty by the jury and convicted to 20 to 30 years in prison after the state court and prosecutor used his confession.

Read More
799 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was a case that was brought to the United States Supreme Court through a Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona. At the Trial Court of Arizona the written confession of Ernesto Miranda was admitted as evidence and the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the case. Id. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Id. Issue: Was the constitutional right of the V amendment that protects against self-incrimination violated in Ernesto Miranda’s case?

Read More
1407 Words | 6 Pages

Both courts affirmed the lower court’s judgment and rejected Salinas’ claim that his silence was used in chief violation of the Fifth Amendment. Issue: Can one fairly conclude that an individual who agreed to be questioned has revoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection? Was Salinas’ silence a true exercise of this amendment? Rule: The petitioner must specifically call on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the time he relies on it in order to receive the benefit. Decision: Salinas’ claim fails because he did not verbally invoke this Fifth Amendment privilege in his response to the officer’s questions.

Read More
1193 Words | 5 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona Bashlor, 1 Miranda v. Arizona: Rights of the Accused Lauren Bashlor Liberty High School AP Government 3AB The U.S. Supreme Court?s compromise in the Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court case referred to three different court cases aside from Miranda v. Arizona case. Each of the three different court cases involved the rights of the accused individuals (U.S Courts, 2015a). Miranda v. Arizona court case dealt with an individual being accused of kidnapping and raping a young woman. Miranda had been questioned and interrogated by the police, he also confessed and signed a written confession during the interrogation, without being read his rights and especially his right to a lawyer and if he could not afford one then one would be given to him (U.S Courts, 2015b). Miranda v. Arizona established that an individual being accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and anything you say can be used against you in the court of law.

Read More
682 Words | 3 Pages

Due to the fact of not being read his rights the Fifth and Sixth Amendment was created. Since the Miranda V. Arizona case has been adopted the way U.S. government has helped mold the nation’s justice system by introducing the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. In March of 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, a resident by the name of Ernesto Miranda sexually assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed an eighteen year old woman as she was on her way home from her usual bus stop. Just days after the incident, the victim reported the events which unfolded that night to the Phoenix police department.

Read More
870 Words | 4 Pages

The party of Arizona argued that his rights had never been violated, thus making his confession valid. They stated that, Miranda had signed off on the confession, therefore he was fully aware of his rights and decided to wave them. I believe that the most persuasive point made in this case is the fact that you cannot use information obtained by not informing a person of their constitutional rights in trial because if it weren’t for their lack of awareness they may not have received the intel in the first

Read More
845 Words | 4 Pages

The police officers told Miranda that he was not obligated to have an attorney present. After two hours of being in custody he signed a statement admitting that he knows the full knowledge of his right and anything from the statement can be used against him. His statement went to a jury at his trial where he was found guilty and was sentenced to prison. The Arizona supreme court did not think that Miranda’s rights were

Read More
306 Words | 2 Pages

The Miranda Rights, are well known to most of the public. So you wouldn’t think that you need to ask for them. The fifth amendment, read during the Miranda Rights, is that a suspect has the right to not self incriminate. In the case of Salinas, he thought he was pleading the fifth, but was surprised that really he was just admitting guilt. Genovevo Salinas, was sitting in silence when being interrogated, assuming that the police knew he was pleading the fifth.

Read More
1269 Words | 6 Pages

The position would include that the evidence from the interrogation can be used and that it is not self-incrimination. The interest is to protect the people, and convict criminals. The needs of the Supreme Court of Arizona would be safety for the people, and justice in the court. The Supreme Court’s position was that Miranda’s rights were violated.

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
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
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
376 Words | 2 Pages

The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing

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 Essay

Related Topics

Open Document