ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

713 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda vs arizona essay 1500

Alan, Betty, and Charlie were long-time friends and grew drained of the day-to-day routine. Alan had a dream where three men went into the national bank and robbed the bank for $1,000,000.00. Although at first, it seemed like a joke, Betty and Charlie believed they should put the dream into reality. The plan was, to have Alan and Charlie enters the bank with fake guns, while Betty waited in the car outside to drive away and act as a lookout. During the robbery, even though they used fake guns a customer standing in line pulled out a gun and shot Charlie. Charlie was killed suddenly. Alan managed to get away and get to the car, he told Betty to drive and he let Betty know that Charlie was shot. A police officer pulled Betty and Allan from seeing …show more content…

Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, stating that when a person is taken into police custody, before being interrogated he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statement (Criminal.findlaw.com, 2017). When in the police custody they have to tell you the four things before being questioned about anything. Having to be questioned a suspect in custody devoid of having given the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is supposed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. The law requires that officers read Miranda rights to a suspect in custody prior to their questioning or interrogation (Criminal.findlaw.com, 2017).For saying the Miranda rights it informs the suspect that he/she have the right to remain silent, that anything he or she says may be used against them in court, and that he/she has the right to an attorney. If the suspect has not been read the rights confessions or statements made after the arrest may not be admissible (Criminal.findlaw.com, 2017). Before the officer read Miranda Rights to either party, he asked Betty the guns and masked were from and she said a robbery. That means the confession will be thrown out of the case against Betty and Alan but also the guns and masked will be thrown out to because it was exposed exclusively as an effect of the illegal

Show More
Related
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
1196 Words | 5 Pages

The decision of The Supreme court for Miranda V. Arizona addressed 4 separate trials. In the Miranda V. Arizona trial while he was being questioned he had no contact with the outside world. In the trial he was not told all of his rights. The questioning brought about oral statements, three of which, were signed statements that were disclosed at trial. Miranda was arrested at his house where he was then taken to the police station, and identified by an witness.

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Upon arrival Miranda was identified by the victim and subjected to two hours of interrogation. Upon the completion of the interrogation Miranda made an oral confession and signed a written statement. The statement signed by Miranda stated that the confession obtained was done so voluntarily and with full knowledge of his constitutional rights. At trial Miranda's confession was admitted as evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping.

Read More
783 Words | 4 Pages

The arguments in the case began when the defense, who was representing Miranda, made an objection to allowing into evidence the written confession due to Miranda not being properly informed of his constitutional rights. This particular argument originates from the fact that officers had admitted that they did not read Miranda his right to an attorney; they also read his right to a voluntary confession out loud before receiving an oral confession. The State of Arizona then presented their argument that because he did not specifically ask for an attorney, none of his rights were violated. The purpose of their argument was to make certain that the written confession was applied as evidence to charge him with the

Read More
799 Words | 4 Pages

Id. However, two hours later after the interrogation Ernesto Miranda signed a written confession that also stated that Ernesto Miranda was aware of his legal rights even though the officers did not ask Miranda if he knew anything

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
353 Words | 2 Pages

Before we ask you any questions, you must understand what your rights are. You have the right to remain silent. You are not required to say anything to us at any time or to answer any questions. Anything you say can be used against you in court. " These rights are due to the landmark case of 1966 known as Miranda vs. Arizona.

Read More
1392 Words | 6 Pages

To ensure that your rights are protected under the United States Constitution, the Miranda warning must be read to you upon an arrest. Danny Escobedo, a 22-year-old murder suspect, was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with a shooting of his brother-in-law, about 11 days prior. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but was released after making no statement and had his lawyer obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. In police custody, Escobedo confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim. He was not advised of his right to remain silent, violating his Fifth Amendment, and police interrogated Escobedo for several hours, while repeatedly denying his request to consult with

Read More
440 Words | 2 Pages

They can be also called the Miranda warning but both were created after the trial. Nationwide, police departments began distributing index cards to their officers so that they could recite them to the suspects. The Miranda Warning reads, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney.

Read More
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
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
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
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
1680 Words | 7 Pages

The case of People v. Tanner, decided on June 23, 2014, is an example of a case in which the accused felt their Miranda rights were violated. On October 17, 2011, George Tanner was arrested for murder, read his Miranda Rights, and taken to jail. He then asked for counsel and to stop questioning until he had a lawyer. While talking to a psychologist shortly after, he said he wanted “to get something off his chest”. The psychologist informed the administrator of the jail and they called in a lawyer so they could speak to him.

Read More
568 Words | 3 Pages

The Miranda Rights were put in place to make sure any person who is placed under arrest, is informed of their rights. A suspect should only be read their rights when legally required, such as when an official arrest is made, or when the person being questioned is a juvenile. Exigent circumstances can grant an officer the ability to bypass reading of The Miranda Rights to a suspect. Page Break In 1966 the Miranda Rights were established to insure a person who is under arrest is aware of their rights, which is due to the United States Supreme Court case Miranda V. Arizona.

Read More

More about Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

Related Topics

Open Document