ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

794 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essay about police misconduct

A significant ruling that established the constitutional rights of criminal defendants was Miranda v. Arizona. The criminal law and procedure in the United States have been significantly impacted by this case. This event occurred in Phoenix, Arizona in 1996 and lasted from February 28 to June 13, 1966. This lawsuit was brought before the Arizona State Superior Court. Arizona is the defendant in this lawsuit, and Miranda is the plaintiff. In this paper, we'll talk about the background facts and information surrounding the case, the specifics of the case, the case's resolution, and whether the resolution was constitutionally sound. We will also look at how this case has affected history and how it will continue to do so in the future. For allegedly kidnapping and raping a woman in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was detained in 1963. He was not made aware of his constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, by the police when they were questioning him. Based on his confession, which he gave without being aware of his rights, Miranda was convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court concurred, concluding that Miranda had not been properly informed of his constitutional rights by the authorities. There were major issues …show more content…

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

Show More
Related
799 Words | 4 Pages

Judgment: The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision that was made by Arizona in Ernesto Miranda’s case because no efforts were made by Arizona to inform Miranda about his legal rights before the interrogation took place, thus this makes the interrogation and confession unconstitutional and it should have never been accepted as evidence. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

Read More
272 Words | 2 Pages

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).

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
1407 Words | 6 Pages

Landmark Supreme Court Case – Miranda v. Arizona As stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (School). Police officers work non-stop, around the clock to only detain, arrest, and covict criminals. The restrictions of abusing victims rights have been part of the United States since the Bill of Rights but this view changed in the 1960s. Due to the fact that crime was rising in the 1960s, public satefy was becoming more of a concern so officers needed a method to reduce crime in the public.

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
587 Words | 3 Pages

David Joseph Solis Prof. Richard Manderfield WRA 115, Section 001 October 7 2015 Miranda v. Arizona, a Spark of Democracy In 1966, a Supreme Court ruling became one of the most important cases that are studied in today’s history classes. Miranda v. Arizona, a case that began when Ernesto Miranda confessed to the authorities that he indeed, raped a teenage female. Even though Miranda did not know his rights nor was he informed of them, he signed a confession where it stated that he knew his rights. The Miranda v. Arizona case did not only establish the Miranda rights, but became a symbol of democracy; an important cultural value in the United States.

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

The justice system changed by this case because, the prosecution may not utilize proclamations, regardless of whether exculpatory or inculpatory, originating from custodial cross examination of the respondent unless it shows the utilization of procedural protections powerful to secure the benefit against self-implication. “The apex of the individual-rights emphasis in Supreme Court decisions was reached in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, which established the famous requirement of a police “rights advisement” of suspects” (Schmalleger, 2018, p. 198). Furthermore the miranda rights are now included in the 5th

Read More
569 Words | 3 Pages

Before the police interrogation, which lasted two hours, Miranda was not informed of his rights which therefore caused him to be interrogated without an attorney present and it led him to self-incriminate himself. The trial “ consisted solely of his confession” (Alex Mcbride n.d.) which caused the court to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, sentencing him to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda then went to the Arizona Supreme Court appealing that his confession was unconstitutionally obtained and used against him. When the court disagreed he appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where they declared the actions of law enforcement unconstitutional because they violated the constitution's fifth and sixth amendment. Because of this, Miranda's confession could not be admissible in a court of

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
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
696 Words | 3 Pages

Arizona was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1966. The argument for the defense was that Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Sixth Amendment Right to legal counsel were evidently violated. The State of Arizona ignored the Escobedo rule, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1964, which states that a statement form a detained suspect in police custody is inadmissible in a court of law unless if the detained suspect is warned of the right to remain silent or the right to an opportunity to have an attorney present, and The Gideon rule, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1963, which permits all suspects of felony the right to an attorney. Inclusive with these violations, Miranda’s confession was obtained illegally and should be dismissed. The verdict was inequitable, and Miranda should receive a new trial.

Read More
554 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona was a groundbreaking case for the judicial system and law enforcement. It consisted of four cases; all dealing with interrogations: Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. In all the listed cases, each defendant was questioned without being given their rights and gave some kind of confession. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping and robbery. The victim picked Ernesto out of a line up, and he was brought in for questioning.

Read More
1172 Words | 5 Pages

The work of the Rehnquist court were thought to be more conservative and advancing a decrease of legal rights for unlawful suspects, defendants and condemned offenders (Spohn, and Hemmens, 2012). The Rehnquist Courts stance on the right against self- incrimination and the right to remain silent remains the same. Rehnquist voted to reaffirm the court’s 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona based on his thoughts that the totality of the circumstances test being more difficult than Miranda for law enforcement officers to conform to, and for courts to apply in a consistent manner. (Spohn and Hemmens,

Read More
989 Words | 4 Pages

During the interrogation Stewart admitted that he robbed the decease women but he also stated that he didn't mean to hurt her. After his confession the police than released the other four who was present at the time of Stewart's arrest because their was not enough evidence to hold them. The Miranda law is protected under the Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution. According, to the U.S. Constitution the Fifth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in a criminal case. With the Miranda law while suspects are in custody of the police the must be read four rights before being questioned.

Read More

More about Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

Open Document