ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

697 Words3 Pages

Drew Roberts
Ms. Blount
5th period
14 March 2018
Miranda v Arizona Miranda v Arizona was one of the largest and most important Supreme Court cases in the history of the United States. Miranda v Arizona set the precedent for every arrest since the case in 1966. The case became so popular and widely known that today, before being arrested, the police officer or federal agent must read you your Miranda Rights. This case changed the way law enforcement must do their job for the rest of the time that the United States is established. 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 …show more content…

Miranda was initially found guilty in the Arizona Trial Court. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, who ruled the same decision. So, Miranda took his case to the Supreme Court to get it overturned. The Supreme Court eventually overturned the decision made by the Arizona Court System. However, this case was very controversial because they knew that he was guilty, yet they were letting him go free. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda in a five to four vote on June 13, 1966. Even in the Supreme Court, Miranda v Arizona was very controversial. “Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority [in favor of Ernesto Miranda]. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings” (Oyez). Justice Tom Clark stated that he was in favor of Arizona because there isn’t any law stating that citizens must be made aware of their rights. He also argued that the government/ police shouldn’t have to step all pressure that is applied to a suspect purely because they don’t want to be pressured. Justice White, who also voted in favor of Arizona, claimed that this case destroys all chances of any reputable …show more content…

If the police officer or federal agent makes that mistake, they can’t try that person anymore for that crime because of the double jeopardy clause in the fifth amendment. The double jeopardy clause states that you can’t be accused of a particular crime more than one time. Therefore, if found innocent, evidence of guilt still can’t overturn the decision. One of the main reasons this case is so important is that police or agents have to be careful because if they accuse someone and violate their fifth amendment to remain silent, then that suspect can’t be found guilty for that crime no matter what. So, this case makes it to where the police officer or federal agent must alert the citizen of his or her

Show More
Related

Forensic Science: The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

712 Words | 3 Pages

During Ernesto Miranda’s trial, his lawyer Alvin Moore tried to get his confession to be rule out as evidence during the trial. The judge overrule Alvin’s objection and the confession was kept as evidence in the trail. Keeping the confession in the trail caused Ernesto Miranda to be convicted of rape and kidnapping and was going to be sentenced for 20 to 30 years for each charge, but they were going to be served concurrently, which means at the same time. After the verdict was given, Alvin Moore filled for appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The reason for his appeal was that the confession given by Ernesto Miranda should not have been admitted into the trial because it was obtained without making him aware of all his rights.

Read More

Wendell Clayton Case Study

1593 Words | 7 Pages

v. Clayton, held that the police officers did not infringe Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer’s rights under ss. 8 and ss. 9 of the Charter as their unusual behaviour gave the officer reasonable grounds to conduct a pat down search. This case is significant to us for various reasons. First of all this case shows us the circumstances, when a police officer has the right to detain an individual without a search warrant.

Read More

Summary Of District Of Columbia Vs Wesby

1299 Words | 6 Pages

It made it to the Court of Appeals because of writ of certiorari Key Issues If the police made false arrest? Did the police have probable cause to make an arrest? If they didn’t have probable cause to make the arrest do they have qualified immunity?

Read More

Summary Of Kyllo V. United States

549 Words | 3 Pages

Claiming the thermal evidence was a violation of the fourth amendment right, your right to privacy within your home and to legal searches. After this case was sent to the Supreme Court, which I agree is where this case belonged, they found that the lower courts judgments were wrong in admitting this evidence. And after reading the facts of the case fully and Justice Scalia’s court opinion, I would have to agree that this case requires further inquiry into the original intent of the fourth amendment. I think that we as citizens do have a right to privacy within are home, however I think that if someone is doing something illegal within their home then there should be proper measurements that are taken to stop them. The reason I think the court should have ruled in the way they did is because this is a case where is begs the question how far can someone go using technology to obtain information that normally would have caused the officer to break the law to

Read More

Missouri Vs Seibert Case Analysis

872 Words | 4 Pages

What makes the facts of Seibert different from the facts in Elstad is Michael Elstad was arrested for burglary after after a witness contacted the police. Two officers went to his home after receiving a witness tip, as his mother answered the door, she led them to his room where they led him to another room away from his mother so that they could begin questioning him. Elstad was talked to without having his Miranda rights read to him, and the officers got him to state that he was present during the burglary. As he was transported to the police station he was finally read his Miranda rights which are something that should have been done before he was brought to the station and before he confessed to being present during the robbery. As he was standing in court Elstad told the judge that the statement he gave to the officers “let the cat out the bag” and that it tainted the consequent confessions, so the judge ruled the statement “I was there” had to be omitted because he had not been advised of his Miranda rights.

Read More

Case Brief Miranda Vs Arizona

688 Words | 3 Pages

Case Citation: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Plaintiff/ Appellant State of Arizona, Defendant/ Appellee Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation.

Read More

Hernandez Vs State Of Texas Summary

806 Words | 4 Pages

This case was viewed as a challenge to the jury which did not include Mexicans and the final verdict that Hernandez was guilty did not come

Read More

Terry V. Ohio Tests The Limitations Of The Fourth Amendment

841 Words | 4 Pages

The case of Terry v. Ohio tests the limitations of the fourth amendment. On October 31st, 1963, three men were acting suspicious on the streets of Ohio. A police officer noticed three men walking back and forth and peering into a store as if they were planning to rob it. They continued doing so and ended up meeting with another person. At that point, officer McFadden approached to stop and frisk for any weapons or drugs.

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Court Case Essay

1005 Words | 5 Pages

This decision was decided by only a 5-4 vote majority (Oyez). This vote was lead by Chief Justice Warren (Legal

Read More

Essay On Miranda V. Arizona 384 US 436

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

Miranda Vs Arizona Dbq

528 Words | 3 Pages

There is a comfort in knowing that one has a form of representation in a situation like this, and the court argues that Miranda was under pressure during his statement. Throughout history, lawyers were available to the general public to allow the defendants a sense of ease instead of vulnerability to the police. This case shows that achieving this right would have resulted in a different outcome of Miranda’s

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

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

Dbq Miranda Essay

1163 Words | 5 Pages

In 1966, an influential court case occurred – one that would shape the United States to improve the justice system. Ernesto Miranda was accused for crimes and identified by the victim, after which he was then interrogated. Miranda orally confessed to a crime and signed a written confession; however, he did not request a lawyer, nor was he advised of his right to have one present. Due to the inadequate constitutionality of the situation, Miranda was able to challenge the Supreme Court in this conviction. The ruling in Miranda represents the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise of self-incrimination by offering protection in statements, reinforcing the Fifth Amendment, and the equity of suspects during interrogation.

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

925 Words | 4 Pages

The Justices in the majority vote was Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan and Fortas. The majority opinion was that any defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their rights against self-incrimination and be giving the opportunity for an attorney before being interrogated when in the custody of the state. Anything said by the defendant in custody, freely, may be used in a court hearing. In the court they also ruled that police must inform defendant of their rights before they are taken into custody. There are 4 things they must inform the defendant of: 1) that they have the right to remain silent 2) that anything they say can be used against them in court 3) that they have the right to an attorney, either retained by them or appointed by the court 4) that they may waive any of these

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

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 Research Paper

Related Topics

Open Document