ipl-logo

The Miranda Warning

856 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essay on miranda warning

In the U.S.AWhen people are arrested, the police must inform them of their rights. The entire set of instructions to accused criminals, known as “The Miranda Warning” (or “Miranda Rights”), are as follows:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.” So, the Miranda ruling requires that, prior to any questioning, a person who is in police custody must be warned that:
1. They have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything what they say can and will be held against them in a court of law.
3. You …show more content…

Arizona. In the early 1960s, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested and convicted of raping a woman. Police found him in his apartment ,who voluntary accompanied them to the station house and participated in a lineup ,after that when Miranda asked how he did, the police said that he was positively identified.he was admitted guilty,he signed a confession after hours of interrogation by the Phoenix Police Department. At no point was he informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney. 73 year old Alvin Moore was represented Miranda in his trial. They lose first instance, In July 1963, Ernesto Miranda was finally sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for the kidnapping and rape of Lois Ann Jamesonthe. In every state in America, there is at last one higher court to which a person can appeal his conviction. In Arizona, in 1963, there was only one level of appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court, Moore appeal the case , Alvin Moore pointed out that police had not observed proper procedure in their arrest and interrogation of Miranda. Moore was convinced that the police had used Miranda’s ignorance of his rights to their advantage and that they had manipulated him into witnessing against himself ,Moore and Miranda also lose this court ,because One of the key procedures of an appellate court is to review earlier court cases to see how those cases might relate to the case under review .this cases was : Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), they involved some similar

Show More
Related
529 Words | 3 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.

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
1486 Words | 6 Pages

Through the disclosure of rights and encouragement of legal counsel, Miranda warnings provide a suspect with the opportunity to have legal representation to help protect them from unintentional or involuntary confessions. Legal representatives can provide protection against deceitful interrogation and potential violations of their rights. The second reason I support the argument is that Miranda V. Arizona prevents susceptible individuals from being influenced by forceful or deceitful interrogation tactics that aim to manipulate suspects into providing information or confessions. In many situations, police officers and other law enforcement officials will attempt to lie and manipulate a detainee into providing information.

Read More
515 Words | 3 Pages

During the course of police interrogation, Miranda confessed to another serious crime. Ultimately, the courts decided that since Miranda had not been informed of his fifth amendment rights and had not waived them, his confession was not valid. It is because of this case that law enforcement officers today read what is known as

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
1630 Words | 7 Pages

 These apply in most criminal cases and can often form the basis of the defendant’s defense. Many of these can be found directly in the original text articles of the constitution.   Now just like the Miranda rights that police officers must say when making an arrest while in custody prisoners still have their rights too. Like this one, one rule states that; In many situations, criminal suspects may have false confidence that they can handle the matter on their own, without the assistance of an attorney.

Read More
1055 Words | 5 Pages

Arizona that criminals must be informed of their rights before being prosecuted. Today, this ruling requires that police inform criminals of their right to remain silent, and that anything they say can be used against them in court. These rights, also known as Miranda rights include the criminal’s right to an attorney. If the police do not read a person’s Miranda rights when arresting a criminal, the court judging the case can discard any evidence that the criminal reveals while in police custody since he or she was not informed of their right to remain silent. While the Miranda decision was unpopular at the time, it was critical to ensuring that criminals were being persecuted for the appropriate crime on clear evidence and received the right to a fast and proper

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
814 Words | 4 Pages

The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that a defendant, “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate

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

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
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
1230 Words | 5 Pages

The right to a miranda warning also takes place in both the juvenile and adult systems. The miranda warning also known as the miranda rights is the right to silence said by a police officer to the person being taken into

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
629 Words | 3 Pages

Generally, police provide Miranda warning when they place a person under arrest. Yet, are not required to provide such warnings unless an individual is in custody (reasonably feels unable to leave or is physically restrained) and subject to custodial interrogation (questioning designed to seek an incriminating

Read More

More about The Miranda Warning

Related Topics

Open Document