Miranda V Arizona

In: Social Issues

Submitted By dannychango
Words 1278
Pages 6
Miranda v. Arizona:
Half a Century Later

by:
September 2nd, 2014

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Executive Summary –
In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated the case Miranda v. Arizona the most important aspect of due process and criminal procedure ever affecting law enforcement and prosecutorial conduct of an investigation. The main issues in this case were: * The admissibility of a defendant’s statements if such statements were made while the defendant was held in police custody or deprived of freedom of movement in a significant way; * What procedures were required to guarantee the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination according to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? This case is considered the summit of the criminal procedure evolution establishing specific procedures to safeguard the rights of defendants beyond the courtroom and onto the police station. The procedural details and the breadth of civil rights tangled in these four cases, made this decision the pinnacle case in the area of criminal procedure. Nowadays, this decision gave the name to what is widely known as the “Miranda Warnings” which include: 1. The suspect has the right to remain silent, 2. Anything he/she says may be used as evidence against him, 3. He/she has a right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and 4. If indigent, he/she has a right to a lawyer selected for him without charge.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE CRIME A. Background –
During the 1960’s courts around the country were deliberating multiple issues regarding overzealous law enforcement tactics seeking confessions from detainees. Prior to this case, in 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the admission at trial of confession obtained during police…...

Similar Documents

Miranda Warnings

...U.S. Constitution – The Miranda Warning Technically, The Miranda Warning is not in the U.S. Constitution. The Miranda Warning came about after Miranda vs. Arizona in 1966. But it refers to the Fifth Amendment right that protects against self-incrimination, or "the right to remain silent". (Cornell) Amendment V “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Mount 2010) Basically, the 5th amendment is to protect people in situations from getting in trouble it even protects ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves. In particular, it stops you from having to speak to the police or testify against yourself before a court, so it is best to keep your mouth shut until you have a lawyer. It also says that the government has to have a reason for arresting you and that you have the right to a trial with a jury, that you cannot be charged with capital a crime (murder) without a Grand Jury's permission, except in cases when you’re in the......

Words: 1245 - Pages: 5

Miranda vs. Arizona

...February 25, 2013 PLS 135 Miranda vs. Arizona In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was the plaintiff and the state of Arizona was the defendant. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of the March 1963 kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl in Phoenix, Arizona. After the crime the police picked up Miranda because he fit the description of the girl’s attacker. The officers took him into an interrogation room and told him that he had been identified by the victim, although that was false. After the police questioned Miranda for two hours, he confessed. At the trial, the defense counsel tricked one of the detectives into admitting that Miranda was never given the opportunity to seek advice from an attorney before his interrogation. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 40-60 years in prison. When he tried to appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court set aside his conviction. Then Chief Justice Warren wrote: “Prior to and questioning, the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed…” Miranda was retried, only this time without his confession being introduced into evidence at the trial, he was convicted again. Even though his......

Words: 589 - Pages: 3

Miranda vs Arizona

...Miranda v Arizona Westwood College Miranda v. Arizona Every time someone is arrested the police officer reads them their right, which was not always the case. They read as followed "you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you can't afford one, one will be provided to you." But why do the officers have to remind the people of their rights, because of the Miranda v. Arizona case. Before the Miranda v. Arizona case people were not reminded or even aware that they had such rights. In the 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape. He was accused of kidnapping and raping a young girl and when the officers arrested Miranda and then the victim identified him. After the trial was done Miranda was found guilty because after being interrogated for a couple hours he confessed to the crime not knowing that the 5th amendment states you don't have to plead guilty if you do not want to. That is what self incrimination is, for example when Miranda was being asked about the crime he did not have to answer he could of just said he plead the 5th and said he wanted to wait for an attorney to both consult him and be with him while he was being interrogated. If Miranda would have known that he had that right he probably would not have incriminated himself. Miranda was also known to have some mental problems......

Words: 1127 - Pages: 5

Miranda V Arizona Brief Irac

...Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (1) Facts: Miranda was unaware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations. (2) Issues: The question is whether or not the police is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants? (3) Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court established a “bright line” rule to govern custodial interrogations, maintaining that they are inherently coercive because: (a) Suspects are held in strange surroundings where they’re not free to leave, and (b) Skilled police officers use unrefined methods to “crack” the will of suspects. The bright-line rule prevents police coercion while still allowing police pressure. During custodial interrogations, police must give suspects the famous four warnings: (a) You have a right to remain silent, (b) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court, (c) You have a right to a lawyer, and (d) If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. (4) Application: The Supreme Court further explained that the process of interrogation is already intimidating, and the suspect must be read his rights to counteract this intimidation. Then the Court outlined the way in which a suspect must be informed of his rights. This must take place before the suspect is questioned, and an officer doesn't have to do it......

Words: 295 - Pages: 2

Miranda

... The Miranda Warning for the past decade, many organizations have sort to change many of the laws, governing our rights and freedom. These laws were passed by congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Miranda Warning is one of these laws. The Miranda Warning is intended to protect the guilty as well as the innocent and should be protected at all costs. Without the law, many suspects may be treated unfairly. It is a necessary safeguard. Miranda is a ruling which says that the accused have the right to remain silent and prosecutors may not use statements made by them while in police custody, unless the police advice them of their rights. In other words, a police officer must inform a suspect of this fundamental right, under the Fifth Amendment, at the time of their arrest and or interrogation. Miranda protect ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves. Does the Miranda Rights benefit the defendant too much where as the courts throw out voluntary confessions? The Fifth Amendment clearly 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, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia. (U.S Constitution Fifth Amendment) When arresting citizens, officers must inform the individual of his or her rights or the statement that was said will be disregarded in the court of law. (U.S. Gov Info/Miranda: Right of Silence) These rights are called Miranda rights......

Words: 547 - Pages: 3

Miranda

...Miranda The Fifth Amendment commands that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” By this creed the Miranda rights when invoked, protects the suspect from relaying information to law enforcement which can used in a court of law against him. Even though the Miranda rights now occupy a pivotal place in American legal culture, it is still evolving and the Courts have continued to define its scope, strength and limitations since the initial ruling in 1966. Within the fact pattern given in Appendix I there are several incident components. The basic outline describes police Officer Watson responding to a burglary in progress call at 2:00 a.m., witnessing a person in dark clothing fleeing the reported scene of the crime. Pursuit first by car and then on foot ensues, with the suspect even climbing a fence in his effort to get away from the officer. A metal object is discarded prior to when Officer Watson catches the suspect. Officer Watson asks about the discarded object, and then finds the knife and some jewelry. He places the suspect under arrest then continued to ask the suspect questions about the knife and jewelry. The suspect remains silent and Officer Watson takes him back to the station for further interrogation. There the suspect confessed to the burglary under questioning. Ideally the Miranda rights should be read to the suspect after he or she has officially been taken into custody, but prior to any questioning or......

Words: 1096 - Pages: 5

Tison V Arizona

...Tison v. Arizona Citation. 481 U.S. 137, 107 S. Ct. 1676,95 L. Ed. 2d 127, 1987 U.S. 1808 Fact.The Petitioners are the sons of Gary Tison (Tison). Gary Tison had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a guard whom he killed in the course of a prison escape. After spending a number of years in jail, Tison’s wife, their three sons, Tison’s brother and other relatives engineered a prison escape. The escape was executed such that no shots were fired at the prison. However, after the escape, the getaway car had a flat tire. The group elected to flag down a passing motorist and steal a car. A car occupied by John Lyons, his wife Donnelda, his two-year-old son Christopher and his 15-year-old niece, Theresa Tyson, pulled over to render aid. Gary Tison and his former cellmate Randy Greenawalt, intentionally shot and killed all four passengers. Several days later, the Tisons and Greenawalt were apprehended at a police roadblock. A firefight broke out. Donald Tison was killed at the scene; Gary Tison was wounded and escaped into the desert where he later died. The two remaining Tison brothers were tried individually for capital murder in the deaths of the Lyonses. The murder charges were predicated on Arizona's felony-murder statute, which provided that killings that occurred during a robbery or kidnapping were first-degree, death-eligible murder. The Tison brothers were convicted. At a separate sentencing hearing, three aggravating factors were proved: the Tisons had......

Words: 756 - Pages: 4

Miranda V Arizona

...Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery (Landmark Cases). After being arrested, Miranda was interrogated for hours where Miranda allegedly confessed to the crimes. He then stood trial were this confession being the only evidence from the prosecution and he was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Ernesto Miranda never finished the ninth grade, had a history of mental problems and received no counsel during the interrogation or trial. Following his conviction, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court “claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” (Landmark Cases). The court upheld the conviction. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally looked at the case in 1966. Upon evaluation of the case the court found many flaws in the arrest of Ernesto Miranda. Under the Fifth Amendment the suspect has right to refuse to be a witness against himself and the Six Amendment, which gives a guarantee to a criminal defendants the right to an attorney (Landmark Cases). This is the police’s duty to inform all suspects of these rights, something that was not given prior to the two-hour interrogation. Chief Justice Earl Warren made this all part of the written decision in a 5-4 ruling by The Supreme Court that overturned the conviction of Ernesto Miranda (Landmark Cases). Ernesto Miranda would later be retried and convicted of the same crimes without......

Words: 416 - Pages: 2

Miranda vs Arizona

...Facts In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested in connection with the rape and kidnapping of women. While in custody and after 2 hours of interrogation, he confessed of robbery and attempted rape. His confession and the testimony of the victim were used in the trial. The judge of the Superior Court allowed the confession was used and Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison Miranda appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court; His lawyer argues that his confession should not be used in court because he had not been informed of their rights. Arizona Supreme Court rejected his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then petitioned for the case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Intimidation deprives suspects of their basic freedom and may lead to false confessions. The defendant's right to a lawyer is during interrogation allows the offender to tell their story without fear, effectively, and in a way that all his rights will be protected. Issue: Legal issue The issue of this case is if the government is required to notify the accused detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination before questioning the accused. The government has to notify detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment. The Amendment explain “the right to remain silent, it just mean all that they confess could be used against them in court, his right to counsel and their right......

Words: 510 - Pages: 3

Miranda V. Arizona

... Miranda V. Arizona (1966) No. 759 In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of a 18 year old female although he confessed under police interrogation, he was never informed of his right to remain silent. Miranda was eventually convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court in 1966 claiming his confession was unconstitutional. In the case the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not law officials must inform a defendant of his or her rights prior to investigation. The court reviewed three other cases, in Vignera V. New York, Westover V. United States, and California V. Stewart in all these cases suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, and prosecuting attorneys in rooms that where cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. The case was argued between the days of Feb 28, Mar 1, & 2 (1966) on June 13, 1966 under Chief Justice Earl Warren who had presided over the landmark Brown V. Board of Education (1954). In a 5-4 decision the court overturned Miranda’s conviction because Miranda was not explicitly informed of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution thus to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law the court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated. The mandatory Miranda Rights begin with”......

Words: 498 - Pages: 2

Miranda Rights

...rights, any statements made cannot be used in court. These rights include: • The right to remain silent. Any statement made may be used as evidence against the defendant (Remy, Ritchie, Scott, & Hanson, 2016, pp. 490). • The right to the presence of an attorney, either hired by the defendant or appointed by the court (Remy et al., 2016, pp. 490). These protections, otherwise known as the Miranda rights, are based on the previous case (or precedent) known as Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year old woman. Being found guilty of both crimes, the US Supreme Court overturned the conviction stating that his rights were violated; the police never disclosed he had the right to avoid self-incrimination by not answering their questions and an attorney was never present during the interrogation which violates the Sixth Amendment (Remy et al., 2016, pp. 490). Whether an interrogation takes place at a crime scene or down the street; whether it is a cashier, teacher or a judge, the police must give that individual a Miranda warning if they are being taken into custody. While there is a Code of Conduct for United States Judges, adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973 (“United States Courts,” 2014), I believe everyone is entitled to the rights set forth by the US constitution. “The code of conduct for United States judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on......

Words: 439 - Pages: 2

Miranda

...is the Miranda v. Arizona, which reached the Supreme Court in 1966. Police investigations varied between departments throughout the United States. Some procedures which some became labeled coercive began to be observed, in some urban centers. Police officers want to determine the facts in cases of criminality and to protect the public by apprehending the perpetrators of crime. Some argued that taking overly aggressive actions undermined the civil liberties upon which the American Nation was founded. Given these competing arguments, and the Warren Court’s then recent trend toward increases activism, the setting was set for a hearing of these matters in the highest court of the United States. That came in the form of Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in a serious criminal case, it involved the kidnapping and rape of a young women. His arrest was based on generally circumstantial evidence, without any clear proof. Police investigators decided to interrogate Miranda in order to ascertain the facts of the matter. Evidence in the case indicates that under police interrogation, Miranda confessed to the charges against him. A written statement was drawn up, which had included waivers in which Miranda attested that he was not coerced and that he understood his legal rights. Miranda signed this document, providing clear means for any prosecution to secure his conviction in a court of law. Important to the legal challenge is the fact that, despite this wavier, Miranda......

Words: 1162 - Pages: 5

United States V. Arizona

...United States v. Arizona: The Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act is Preempted and Discriminatory Melissa Goolsarran Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Perspective: Immigration, Discrimination, and Limitations on State Laws 3 III. Background: United States v. Arizona 9 A. S.B. 1070 and the Legislature’s Justification 10 B. The Decision: United States v. Arizona 18 IV. Analysis: S.B. 1070 is Preempted by Federal Immigration Law and Also Discriminatory 23 A. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Correctly found that S.B. 1070 is Preempted Because it Interferes with the Administration and Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws 24 B. S.B. 1070 Discriminates on the Basis of Race or National Origin 32 V. Comment and Conclusion: Effects of the Arizona Law 36 I. Introduction The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (“S.B. 1070”) has been the subject of many debates for both its potential impact on federal immigration laws and discrimination against citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin. The Arizona State Legislature passed S.B. 1070 to reduce the continuous rise in the number of illegal immigrants and alleged consequent rise in crime rates in the state. Among other provisions, the law requires officers to check a person's immigration status, criminalizes an alien’s failure to comply with federal registration laws and working without authorization, and authorizes warrantless arrests where there is probable cause...

Words: 14328 - Pages: 58

Miranda

...Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) Facts: Defendant Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody and put into an interrogation room after he was accused of rape and kidnapping. After he was interrogated by two officers for two hours he was pushed to give a written confession. During his interrogation Miranda was never made aware of his basic rights and the confession stated that he had voluntary provided this information. The officers claimed that the confession was made without any promises of immunity, threats and that Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights and that he understood the statement that was made against him. Issue: Did the prosecution have the ability to make use of statements that were given in the form of a confession given by a suspect? In the event that the suspect is not made aware of their basic right against self-incrimination and the basic safe guards that are granted by the constitution. Holding: The court concluded that a set of warnings must be administered before anyone is taken into custody and any interrogation is started. The instructions must include that the suspect has the right to remain silent and that anything that is said can be held against them in court. In addition the suspect must be informed that they have the right to an attorney and if they don’t have the money for one, one can be provided for them. And last but not lease the suspect has the right to stop the interrogation anytime. Reasoning: The court was......

Words: 618 - Pages: 3

Miranda Righs

...The Miranda decision is that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." (Zalman, 2008, p. 386). The Miranda decision allows an individual his or her Fifth Amendment rights which are the rights of self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment the right to an attorney. The Miranda decision impacted the criminal justice system because officers could no longer use cruel and unlawful tactics to retrieve a confession. But, overall it just allows the suspect to plead the Fifth with the right to remain silent, and have an attorney present. It does not change the fact the individual will still face charges of the crime the officers will either retrieve a confession or the evidence to convict. I do agree with the Supreme Court holding in Miranda v. Arizona because the tactics sometimes used by officers to make a suspect admit guilt is morally and ethically incorrect. There are some people who are actually innocent but after sitting in a room being pressured and confused about what is really going on I can see that some will admit to guilt just to be done but not understanding the consequences. I believe that police do obey the law and read a suspect their Miranda Rights but that they still have their own ways of manipulating a confession such as the “line-up” description......

Words: 270 - Pages: 2

Angel das Blumenmädchen | La Carrera de la muerte 4: más allá de la anarquía (2018) | Konbini Kareshi