Miranda V. Arizona
In Miranda v. Arizona, The issue the court had to consider was if the statements obtained from Mr. Miranda while he was subjected to police interrogation would be admissible against him in a criminal trial, and if the police procedures which ensures Mr. Miranda is made aware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment not to be forced to incriminate himself, are necessary. The Bill of Rights guarantees that everyone has the right to due process. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) changed our due process by adding additional procedures to how law enforcement handles a suspect and ensuring they know their rights as American citizens. The case of Miranda v. Arizona involved a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda. He was arrested and charged for the kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old woman. Miranda was 23 years old at the time of his arrest. Although, he had a criminal past since he dropped out of school in the eighth grade. One can only assume that because of Mr. Miranda’s criminal history he would know about his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment allows a person the right against self-incrimination. As well as, The Sixth Amendment gives a person the right to counsel if they are facing criminal prosecution. During the interrogation, Mr. Miranda confessed to the rape and kidnapping of the 17-year-old woman. He then proceeded to sign a written confession. It was only at the time that he signed his written confession that he signed a paper that listed his rights and the fact that he understood them. At Miranda’s trial, the arresting officers took the stand and admitted that they did not inform him of his rights. It was also a law in Arizona at that time, that it was standard procedure to make a suspect aware of their constitutional rights. Miranda’s counsel in turn appealed his conviction at the Superior court level and failed. So they appealed the conviction at The U.S. Supreme Court...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document