Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis

The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright, 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They cannot try to pry information out of someone if they have not been read their rights or if they ask for their attorney. It is a different story though is someone just starts rambling on when they are not asked. “Suspects can reinitiate an interrogation by coming forward and indicating to police they wish to talk and are willing to waive their Miranda rights. If there is a break in detention, the police may reinitiate the interrogation after fourteen days” (Wright, 2013).
If a police officer violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, the case goes on but the evidence that is obtained will be thrown out, “no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him” (Wright, 2013).
After an arrest is the Prosecution, there are a lot of factors that come into play when it comes to prosecution
After the charges are filed with the court the suspect will be taken to see a judge for an initial appearance. “ If a defendant is charged only with a misdemeanor, then his or her first court appearance is considered the arraignment. The formal charges are read and the defendant enters a plea. But if charged with a felony, this hearing is simply the initial appearance before the court.” (Wright, 2013). If the judge believes that the evidence is insufficient the case can be dismissed, but if the judge believes that the evidence is sufficient the case will go