ipl-logo

Steven Avery Miranda Rights Case

1087 Words5 Pages

In the case of the Steven Avery and Brendan Dasey’s trial, there were quite a few errors in the trial. Even though I believe Steven Avery is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I also believe that the law made several large mistakes. The constitutional rights that were violated by the Wisconsin justice system were among the sixth and the fifth amendments. The fifth amendment in the aspect of Miranda rights states that a person being interrogated or receiving custodial questioning must be told their Miranda rights. These rights are the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you. These rights were made to be impressed …show more content…

In the earlier paragraph I stated that our Miranda rights are the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, the right to an attorney, if you can not afford an attorney one will be provided for you. The reason police have to tell a person these before detaining or questioning is because if they gain a statement or confession without telling a suspect their Miranda rights those statements are no longer valid in any court of law. This is exactly what happened in the Miranda V. Arizona case. Miranda was detained by police for questioning and gave a written confession after two hours of custodial questioning. Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and killing a girl and was sentenced to twenty five to thirty years in jail. Miranda ended up being let go because the supreme court decided that since the defendant was unaware of his rights at the time of giving his written confession those confessions could not be used in Miranda's case. Because of this police now read everyone they question or detain their Miranda rights. In the case of Brenden Dasey, Brenden was unaware of his Miranda rights and was under the age of eighteen. Therefore, Brendan's mother should have been called and been asked if she wanted to be there or even if it was okay for them to question Brenden. Brendan’s mother states that she was never called or told Brendan was in police custody, but police have said they did call her and were given her permission. Even if what the police have said is true Brendan was unaware of his rights as an American citizen. Brendan is now sitting in a jail cell because of

Show More
Related
540 Words | 3 Pages

Manitowoc County did not abide by the law on the Brendan Dassey murder trial. Investigators pulled Brendan Dassey out of class to question him without his parent 's consent. Investigators coerced Brendan´s statements to make Steven Avery look guilty. Manitowoc County District Attorney Ken Kratz did everything in his power to make Manitowoc County seem like they were abiding by the law when they really did not. “He said I declined to go in with Brendan

Read More
364 Words | 2 Pages

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.

Read More
634 Words | 3 Pages

Avery kept proclaiming his innocence during his appeals. In 2001, the Wisconsin Innocence Project agreed to review Avery's case. The Wisconsin Innocence Project requested permission to conduct advanced DNA testing from the Wisconsin court of Appeals. On September 10, 2003,

Read More
2174 Words | 9 Pages

However, Avery is not as guiltless as it may seem. The series proved to be rather one-sided, leaving important information and evidence out of the documentary that support the prosecution's arguments and instead, highlighting all of the circumstances that backed up the defense's case. Although some may stand firm on the idea that he is innocent, I believe Steven Avery to be a rightfully convicted, guilty man due to the abundant amount of reliable evidence the prosecution presented that all point to Steven Avery taking part in the murder of Teresa Halbach, most of which were excluded from the

Read More
1628 Words | 7 Pages

Evidence was not properly searched and witness questions were set up so Steven Avery would be the man that the witness would choose. Steven Avery was arrested by Sheriffs order. He was denied a phone call which is legally not allowed and had his name kept off the list of inmates so that public defender’s office would not be aware of his arrest. It was obvious that they wanted Steven in there for something they know he didn’t do. After a long 18 year Steven Avery was finally released due to DNA test showing that the pubic hairs found on Beernsten was not his.

Read More
569 Words | 3 Pages

The trial of Casey Anthony was one that struck the nation in a very emotional manner. The trial was on TV for months before anyone could come out with any real answers, and even then, they weren’t the answers they were looking for, and half of them were made up. In the end the jury decided to find her not guilty, while everyone else’s opinion was that she was a cold blooded killer. Unfortunately the proper evidence just wasn’t there in the end to convict her for the first degree murder of her 2 year old daughter Caylee. This being said, if I was on the jury I would definitely have found her guilty because of the, in my opinion, extremely odd behavior that came from Casey during the entire process.

Read More
1540 Words | 7 Pages

Imagine spending eighteen years of your life in prison for a crime you did not commit. The man who served that time will never get those eighteen years back. That man is Steven Avery. On July 29, 1985, at approximately 3:50 PM, Penny Beerntsen was attacked and raped by a stranger while running along a beach in Wisconsin (Innocence Project, 2016). After she picked her assailant out of a police lineup, he was convicted and sentenced to thirty-two years in prison, and for eighteen of those years, Beerntsen knew that her rapist was behind bars.

Read More
1227 Words | 5 Pages

’’ All law enforcement must inform suspects of their rights, also known as the Miranda Rights. Guilty or not his rights were violated and the Bill of Rights includes amendments for the

Read More
883 Words | 4 Pages

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

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
296 Words | 2 Pages

Miranda warnings are intended to ensure that an American citizen is aware of his or her constitutional rights in the event of being questioned by the police. The Miranda warning is not required in every situation, only when an individual is in police custody or being interrogated. In 1984 the case of New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court approved one specific circumstance when it was appropriate not to give a Miranda warning; and it’s exactly what the name suggests. According to the Public Safety Exception, the police can question a suspect without giving him his Miranda warning if he could have information concerning immediate threats to public safety.

Read More
257 Words | 2 Pages

“Miranda warnings are triggered by a simple formula: Custody + Interrogation = The requirement for Miranda warnings” (petrocelli, 2010, p.18). Questioning that occurs by a law enforcement officer after an individual has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom requires that an officer must first read the individual their Miranda rights. Officers do not always have to Mirandize citizen before asking questions only in cases where the individual is being taken into custody or is not free to leave. It can often be confusing to now whether a person is in custody, but that can be clarified by determining if the person has been told they are under arrest, or if the person has been deprived of freedom to the degree one associates

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
890 Words | 4 Pages

Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

Read More
702 Words | 3 Pages

Oh yeah your Miranda rights. These are rights given to you; the free people of the United States, declaring by the Fifth Amendment that while you are being detained by a police officer they have to read your rights to you which is… You have the right to remain silence. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney and have the right to have one during interrogation. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you by the government expense.

Read More

More about Steven Avery Miranda Rights Case

Related Topics

Open Document