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
712 Words | 3 Pages

Rachel Ortiz- Wynne Ms. Bonner Forensic Science Date assigned: 4 October 2017 Date due: 17 October 2017 Miranda v. Arizona The case of Miranda versus the state of Arizona started out when Ernesto Miranda was arrested. The crime committed was an armed robbery, kidnap and rape of an 18 year old girl.

Read More
1593 Words | 7 Pages

In addition to that, this goes to show that anyone in an area with a possible threat to public safety can be stopped to search even if they don’t have anything to do with the crime or weren’t described as a suspect. Furthermore this case is a great example of how

Read More
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
549 Words | 3 Pages

In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property.

Read More
872 Words | 4 Pages

In the case of Missouri vs. Seibert lies many liable facts within the case. Some of the relevant facts is that a woman named Patrice Seibert along with accomplices which includes her son and his friends, sets their mobile home on fire with the dead body of her 12-year-old son along with a mentally ill 17-year-old Donald Rector whom was living in the household, and days after the fire, Seibert was interrogated by a police officer. The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first. Once she had confessed, the officer took a short break from questioning, then preceded to read her, her Miranda rights and resumed questioning after she waived those rights. The officer swayed her to reiterate the confession

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona, stating his confession should have been inadmissible during the original trial, due to fact he had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the lower court's

Read More
667 Words | 3 Pages

In addition, Arizona claimed that Miranda signed the confession willingly and his conviction was based off Arizona law. Arizona claimed the Supreme Court should uphold its conviction and should not downgrade the work from the

Read More
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
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
1005 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
528 Words | 3 Pages

Throughout the 1900s, the critical motion of the Civil Rights Movement greatly influenced society. The various cases that were introduced in courts impacted the fight for equality as well as the creation of stronger laws. A powerful case in this era was Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, a man that confessed to accusations was set free because he was not advised of his rights to remain silent and request a lawyer. The ruling of this case shows the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination by showing the importance of the Fifth Amendment, the signifcance of the right to an attorney, and that under the law, you are innocent until proven guilty.

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
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
925 Words | 4 Pages

In the Supreme Court Case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the challenge of the 5th and 6th amendment right was present. The 5th amendment states,” No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” (Constitution: VI Amendment). The amendment basically gives Americans the right to be silent. The 6th amendment states," In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…. and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense” (Constitution: VII Amendment).

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 Research Paper

Related Topics

Open Document