ipl-logo

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

1269 Words6 Pages

Background: Miranda v. Arizona is a very important, and complex supreme court case. It is a summation of four court cases; our focus Miranda v. Arizona , Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. In each of these cases, the suspects were interrogated in ways that were not procedure and were not aware of their rights of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment allows a suspect to remain silent until a lawyer, private or provided, is there to counsel them.
Ernesto Miranda, the suspect of Miranda v. Arizona, was interrogated for two hours, recorded and signed a confession without knowing that he could remain silent until a lawyer was present. Vignera, of Vignera v. New York, admitted orally to a robbery, was …show more content…

He, as a citizen, has a right to know the Fifth Amendment protects any unfair evidence from being made, and that he does not have to incriminated himself. Arizona’s perception, I believe, are that the police do not have to tell the suspects their rights, and there is no need for a fair interrogation process. The Supreme Court of Arizona did not view this case as having a problem. The judge over looked the interrogation and failure to explains rights because of the signed confession. The Supreme Court acknowledged the wrong doing. Action: After being convicted, Miranda appealed to The Supreme Court to have his case reviewed and to be retried. Arizona tried to use the signed confession again in the new Supreme Court case. Arizona and The Supreme Court of Arizona wanted to just to convict and move on. The Supreme Court took action to prevent self-incrimination in the future and reversed the charges for Miranda.

Positions, Interests, and …show more content…

Also, that the police are there to enforce laws, and that is what they did. The interest would be to enforce the laws, prevent crimes and protect the people of Arizona from criminals. The needs of Arizona are safety of their people, and justice for victims (esteem and self-actualization categories.)
The Supreme Court of Arizona’s position would be like Arizona’s position. The position would include that the evidence from the interrogation can be used and that it is not self-incrimination. The interest is to protect the people, and convict criminals. The needs of the Supreme Court of Arizona would be safety for the people, and justice in the court.
The Supreme Court’s position was that Miranda’s rights were violated. They also held that a person must be told their rights and enacted the Miranda Rights. The interest is to preserve the amendments and make them clear, make sure the people of the United States know their rights, convict criminals, protect innocent suspects, and maintain justice. The needs of the Supreme Court would be justice and protection of the amendments and laws.

Show More
Related
485 Words | 2 Pages

Additionally, if the confession was coerced and impacted the trial, did the Court conduct a harmless error analysis? Was Fulminante’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination violated and was the admission of the confession a violation of his 14th Amendment right to due process? Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona Court had correctly applied both tests when the case was ordered retried without the confessions entered as evidence. Rationale:

Read More
1933 Words | 8 Pages

Mucolly The Supreme Court settles yet another argument; this time, it is MuCulloch v. Maryland. The end decision helped broaden the roles of the federal government, but not necessarily supplied the government with more power. It also shows that activities that fall into the federal category are taken care of seriously and with a reason.

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
808 Words | 4 Pages

It protects a person from being used as a witness against him or herself in a criminal case. In addition, the amendment prohibits government officials from abusing their authority during legal proceedings. It also protects individuals

Read More
345 Words | 2 Pages

the, 5th amendment of the United States Constitution by enforcing Due Process, the rights of the accused and the right to counsel. Ernesto Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona in 1941. (Hogrogian, J. p.103) Ernesto Miranda lived a troublesome youth. At the age of fifteen he was convicted of stealing a car, later arrested for trying to rape a woman and arrested six times by the age of eighteen. (Burgan, M. p. 16) It was not until March 3, 1963 when an assault would lead Ernesto Miranda as the main suspect in what would turn out to be a landmark Supreme Court case.

Read More
599 Words | 3 Pages

Within the court case of Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda was a poor immigrant from Mexico, who lived in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963 (Schmalleger, 2011). Miranda was accused of kidnapping and rape and was arrested after the victim of the crime recognized him in a police lineup (Schmalleger, 2011). Miranda was questioned by police while in police custody for two hours. The rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were not told to Miranda by the officers interrogating him, which are the rights against self-incrimination and right to assistance of an attorney (Harr, Hess & Orthmann, 2012). Considering Miranda was not aware of his rights, he ended up confessing to the crimes, which he was charged (Harr, Hess & Orthmann, 2012).

Read More
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
883 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).

Read More
2786 Words | 12 Pages

United States, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment forbids state institutions from instigating statements of self-incrimination from defendants, specifically after the right to counsel has been “attached” to the defendant. Massiah was accused of violating a federal drug statue; he maintained a lawyer, pled not guilty, and paid bail. Massiah eventually met with a co-defendant, who had decided to cooperate with the government by recording the conversation between him and Massiah. During a conversation with the co-defendant, Massiah had unknowingly incriminated himself, and such self-incrimination would be used against him in court. However, when Massiah appealed to the Supreme Court to void those statements, the court granted his request due to the absence of Massiah’s lawyer.

Read More
1055 Words | 5 Pages

One of the most influential judges of his time, Earl Warren was born on March 11th, 1891 to a Norwegian immigrant. Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles, California. He grew up in Bakersfield and attended the School of Jurisprudence of the University of California at Berkeley for his education. During these years, Warren worked as a law clerk, where he assisted local judges in writing legal determinations and opinions. The occupation granted him experience in the field of law as well as financial stability.

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
829 Words | 4 Pages

The legal case of Arizona v. Miranda, which took place in 1966, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that had a profound impact on criminal procedure in the country. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, a man who had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The overall issue of the case was the admissibility of the confession that Miranda had made to the police during his interrogation, which had been obtained without informing him of his constitutional rights. The court ultimately ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence against him, as the police had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This decision led to the creation of what today is known

Read More
376 Words | 2 Pages

The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

Read More
501 Words | 3 Pages

The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

Read More

More about Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Related Topics

Open Document