Preview

Introduction to Criminal Law

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
469 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Introduction to Criminal Law
Introduction to Criminal Law
CRJS 205 Unit 1 DB

My Attorney that I work for has advised the judge (the accused) to file a motion to suppress his statements. Because the arresting officers failed to read the judge his Miranda Rights thus, the judge’s statements were illegally obtained. I am in favor of this position, because the Judge made statements that may incriminate himself. This is great advise for the opposing counsel to protect his or her client, knowing that the prosecution is going to dispute the motion on the grounds that the Judge is aware of his rights because he is an attorney and a Judge. Samaha, (2011)
When the officer arrested the judge he was suspected of DUI the officer does not have to read Miranda Rights to the suspect at that point. Miranda rights pertain to custodial questioning, basically this means that if that officer wants to ask the Judge specific questions concerning the DUI that the officer arrested him or her for, then the officer should read his or her Miranda Rights in order for the Judges statements to be admissible in court. Samaha, (2011) Miranda is not a required step in the process for arresting a suspect for a crime that they committed, However, it is a required step the officer must take before an interrogation or questioning takes place. Miranda vs. Arizona, (1966) regardless if he is a judge or not.
Do you believe that the judge should be held to a higher standard due to the fact that he works within the justice system? Why or why not?
Yes I believe that the judge should be held to a higher standard with regard to the laws in the public eye and should strive to go beyond the requirements. primarily because Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts when he is engaged in a criminal activity. The Judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion over his crime. CLR, (1997-98) Judges have a general knowledge



References: Samaha, (2011), Criminal Law, Publisher, Wadsworth, Copyright, 2011/ Retrieved from the AIU Online Library through Course Smart Solutions, Miranda vs. Arizona, (1966) Retrieved from the internet on August 21, 2012 from: www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/miranda.vs.arizona Unknown Author, (1997-1998), Citizens for a legal responsibility, Retrieved from the internet on August 21, 2012 at www.CLR@CLR.org

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    Court Systems Paper

    • 1224 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The United States court system is composed of numerous sections of bodies of law that function together to ensure justness is served in fulfillment with the United States Constitution, federal, state and local laws. These organizations include law enforcement, the courts and, correction system all of which have a legitimate responsibility to maintain the American Peoples trust. I am a strong advocate for our court system, although it can use some fine-tuning every level of Justice could stand some improvement but that takes time, commitment and the right officials in office.…

    • 1224 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Was Mr. Miranda fully apprised of his constitutional rights when the officers failed to inform Mr. Miranda that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation?…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The appellant was in violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a) “which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information”. The appellant claimed that the officers were in violation of his first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. His right to peacefully assemble, his search and seizure rights, his rights in criminal cases, and his civil rights. The application of the Texas Penal Code to detain the appellant and require him to identify himself did violate the Fourth Amendment because Officer Venegas and Officer Sotelo lacked any reasonable suspicion that the appellant was engaging or had engaged in criminal acts. The appellant can’t be punished for refusing to identify himself so the conviction was…

    • 656 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Arizona: (1966) Rights in custody Ernesto Miranda a man who had not completed the ninth grade was arrested at his home in Arizona and identified as a suspect ina rape-kidnapping case. When he was questioned about the crime Miranda maintained he was innocent, but after two hours of interrogation he signed a confession. At the trial the confession was admitted as evidence and the court found Miranda guilty. The police acknowledged that Miranda had not been made aware. of his rights during the process nor had he had access to legal counsel. While the Miranda confession was given with relatively little pressure it still violated the constitutional requirements that governed such procedures. Inthis case, the Warren court ruled that the accused must be made aware of his or her rights from the…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Every key player in the system should be held accountable for their decisions in regards to the accused. For example, judges should not be exempt from consequences when their rulings are inappropriate and result in social upheaval. A system of standards should be in place and after a certain number of infractions, they should be reprimanded or fired depending on the severity of the infraction. In order to avoid poor decision making due to lack of background inquiry, more interns from law schools should be employed to assist in researching the accused. Judges could then make better-informed…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Their reasoning behind this decision was because it needed to be stated that he had to the right to remain silent. Not only this, but he was not told that anything that he said could be used against him in the future. These reasons were then able to prove that Miranda was not able to speak to the police freely upon his own choice of decision. One of the reasons for the decision made was because Miranda did not know he had the right to an attorney leading for him to not have full knowledge of the case and what was going on. Therefore, because the fifth amendment was not applicable to the situation that Miranda was in the prosecution should not have been able to use any of the statements that were…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of Miranda v. Arizona set a precedence on how future suspects would be interrogated. It makes complete sense to advise a person that is being interrogated that he or she has a right to remain silent during interrogation and that he or she has the right to have counsel present during an interrogation. It's also important that the suspect be fully aware and full understand his or her rights before the interrogation begins. -WRITTEN AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION-METHODS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT By Harvey Wallace and Cliff Roberson(CHAPTER 9 PAGE 136)…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Soon thereafter his conviction Miranda appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme court. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction and Disagreed with the unconstitutional confession. It was then that Miranda took his appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In a fourth fifths vote the United States Supreme court ruled in favor of Miranda agreeing that the police that interrogated Miranda denied him of not only his 6th amendment right to counsel however also his fifth amendment right to incriminate himself. On a completely different note the Supreme Court recognized that Miranda as well as others accused of committing crimes have long been subject to police violence and intimidation especially during interrogations and therefore many confessions have been not only forced but possibly…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda and it also enforced the Miranda warning to be given to a person being interrogated while in the custody of the police.…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    What is miranda v. arizona? Do the miranda rights come to mind when you hear miranda v. arizona? Perhaps it does the Miranda rights came to be in 1963 when a man named ernesto miranda was accused of sexual assault towards a girl the case made it all way to the supreme court the case labeled as miranda v. arizona and ernesto was founded guilty of both kidnapping and sexual assault and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison he later then claimed the police did not read him his rights and because he wasn't given the right to remain silence his rights were violated and the case was reviewed again in 1966 because the police had failed to inform Miranda of his right to an attorney. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Arizona vs Miranda

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda was not given a full and effective warning of his rights. He was not told of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Miranda was found guilty of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. During the prosecution, Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. In the end of 1966, 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 informs Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court of Arizona detailed the principles governing police interrogation. Arizona ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda never knew he did not have to speak with the police was interrogated and confessed and was sentenced to jail. Later an attorney looked over the case and requested Judicial Review Claiming that Ernesto’s rights has been violated. In 1966 The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s Conviction, and ruled that if a person is going to be taken in as a suspect they must be informed that they do have a right to and attorney. The suspect also has to be informed that the do not have to speak. The supreme court also ruled that if the suspect is not informed of these right the evidence obtained before hand can not be used in court. These rights are now known as the Miranda rights.…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 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. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. At trial, the prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The first court ruling where Miranda was found guilty to armed robbery was thrown out after his case was and brought up to the Supreme Court. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have informed them of their rights, which are now called Miranda Rights. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights while in custody, therefore any confessions he made could not be used against him in court. At the Supreme Court level, the conviction was overthrown because he was not informed of his right against self incrimination and his right to remain silent. The case was later re-tried without using his confessions in the trial. Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years for armed robbery. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping, he could not be prosecuted for it because there was not enough evidence to show he was the offender in those crimes once his confession was thrown out. Chief justice, Earl Warren established the…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Miranda rights in some cases do ensure justice and at times they don’t. They can unsure justice if they were read to the suspect but if not all the evidence they have collected could go out the window. But if they do read your rights they can continue with their investigation and them anything they find can be used against you.…

    • 235 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays