ipl-logo

Summary Of Miranda V Arizona 384 US 436

529 Words3 Pages

Title: Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the allegedly kidnapping/raping an 18 year old woman near Phoenix, Arizona. When he was brought into the station, police questioned him and after two hours with no lawyer present, Miranda confessed to the crimes. When it came to going to trial, Miranda was appointed a defense attorney- because it was mandated that all defendants have representation paid for by the government. In the end, Miranda’s defense attorney was ineffective in trying to prove Miranda to be “mentally defective or insane”, resulting in Miranda being convicted. The conviction was based off of the confession Miranda gave and the eyewitness identification of him by the victim. After Miranda was convicted, he was represented by different lawyers in front of the supreme court and they argued that the police questioning/interrogating without an attorney present violated Miranda’s fifth and sixth amendment rights, and therefore should not be able …show more content…

Can the confession Miranda gave be used in trial against him? In a 5-4 decision, the court determined that in order for an interrogation and the statements made on behalf of the defendant to be considered as evidence, and in order to protect the accused, the accused needs to be aware of the fact that he/she has the right to an attorney, aware of self incrimination, and will need to voluntarily give up their right to these things if they choose to do so. In this case it was decided that it was not acceptable to use the confession Miranda made against him, and his rights were violated. If any of these criteria are not met, any statements made during an interrogation cannot be used against the defendant, otherwise their rights would be violated. This case is very significant because it changed the way officers perform their duties, and all accused must be read their miranda

Show More
Related

Why Is Mcculloch Vs Maryland Important

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

Case Analysis: Black Mobsters V.

610 Words | 3 Pages

The trial court denied these motions and the statements were used at trial. The jury found petitioner guilty of murder and was sentence to a 24-year prison term. On appeal, Petitioner argued that he had not “knowingly and intelligently” waived his 6th amendment right to counsel before he gave his uncounseled post indictment

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

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

Miranda's Confession, Injustice In Pheonix, Arizona

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

Miranda Vs. Arizona Policing Cases

538 Words | 3 Pages

Since the Police never informed Miranda of his rights he had no counsel, never finished the 9th grade, and had a former history of mental instability. The prosecution on the case only used his own wrongfully obtained confession against him, and sentenced him 20-30 years in prison. He had appealed to the Arizona Supreme court claiming that the Police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession, the court disagreed with him and upheld the charges and

Read More

Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

687 Words | 3 Pages

Final Exam Essay Question #1 Question: What did Miranda v. Arizona ultimately decide and how did it impact police questioning? What is the role of the current public safety exception in terms of Miranda and its use? Be sure to include specific discussions to the original cases and subsequent cases that support when Miranda applies in public safety cases.

Read More

Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

893 Words | 4 Pages

“Miranda v. Arizona” is a case that was presented in the high court in the United States of America. The case addresses four distinct cases that may be considered identical. Each of the four cases involved defendants who were interrogated by the police officers, prosecuting attorney or detectives where they were forced to give information about various crimes committed as they were identified as the suspects. Miranda, who was a Mexican immigrant, was identified by a Phoenix woman as one of the perpetrators who kidnapped and raped her. This resulted to an arrest that was followed by a police interrogation that was carried out for two hours (Vander, & Kamisar, 2013).

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

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

Overview Of Miranda Ruling

861 Words | 4 Pages

Nor did they inform him of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Miranda’s case went to trial in an Arizona state court, with the prosecutor using the confession as evidence against him. Due to his confession he was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Because of the unlawful way his interrogation was conducted Miranda's public defender appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, where they chose to uphold the conviction.

Read More

What Are The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

722 Words | 3 Pages

“Due to the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), each State in the United States must have a way to offer representation to indigent defendants or defendants who cannot afford one for themselves”(“Private Lawyer,” 2015). You have three options for representation in court. You have self-representation, public defender and private attorney. Self-representation should be your last option because most individuals are not familiar with the law. The only people that self-represent their self is lawyers, judges, prosecutors.

Read More

The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

524 Words | 3 Pages

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 ruled that Ernesto Miranda is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against

Read More

Brief Analysis Of The Miranda Vs. Arizona Court Case

928 Words | 4 Pages

The supreme court revealed, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in the trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. This made it harder to convict Miranda. The U.S Supreme court ruled that the Arizona supreme court could not use the confession because it was the police's duty to inform criminal suspect of their Fifth and Sixth amendment. The the Fifth Amendment states that the police must inform the criminal suspect he/she does not have to testify against himself/herself. The sixth amendment states that the suspect has the right to an attorney.

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Injustice

769 Words | 4 Pages

In the case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), Miranda was arrested at his home and taken into custody for questioning. The interrogation lasted for two hours and the complaining witness identified Miranda as the suspect. As a result, Miranda signed a written confession. At trial when the information was presented to the jury, they found Miranda guilty of kidnapping and rape and was charged 20-30 years of imprisonment on each count. Miranda appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Arizona which ruled that his constitutional rights were not violated by obtaining his confession.

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona

1287 Words | 6 Pages

The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

890 Words | 4 Pages

Miranda Vs. Arizona On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his home in Phoenix, Arizona in regards to a rape and kidnapping. After a two hour interrogation, the police had finally gained a confession from Ernesto.

Read More

More about Summary Of Miranda V Arizona 384 US 436

Related Topics

Open Document