Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases and overruled the power of the government. Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment are protected. The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights.
One main argument that was in favor of Miranda was that the police clearly violated Miranda's 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored both the Escobedo and the Gideon in prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty, and he deserved a new trial. Now a main point against Miranda Ernesto was that Miranda was no stranger to police procedures. Ernesto was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18 year old girl near Phoenix, Arizona. He negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding. He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction was based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was just. By a 5-4 margin, the Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Writing for the majority, declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that secure the privilege against self-incrimination are followed. This will lead to the violation of the nation’s most cherished principles—that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself. The creation of the Miranda Warning put on the police the burden of informing citizens subject to questioning in a criminal investigation of their rights to “due process.” Ernesto Miranda, retracting his confession, was tried again by the State of Arizona,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document