Miranda Vs Dickerson Research Paper

Miranda versus Dickerson
The United States Supreme Court is, for all intents and purposes, the final authority on legal matters regarding the federal or state governments. Additionally, the Supreme Court asks as the determining body to the constitutionality of laws made by either the federal or state governments. As such an authority, the Supreme Court is often faced with cases that emulate previous cases. At times the Court upholds its decisions, often times due to the concept of stare decisis or precedence, and other times the Court reverses its opinion. The most common reasons that the Court may overturn its decisions include: a shift if the ideology of the court, a shift in the political climate of the United States, or a change in the social culture has rendered a law or previous decision ineffective. Despite the list of possible motivators for the Court to reverse a decision, it is still uncommon to do so. Many of the factors that could contribute to a decision reversal also have the potential to be the reason the
While in custody, Miranda was interrogated by police for hours until he signed a written confession. Not once during the interrogation was Miranda informed of his rights to counsel or to remain silent. During the trial his court appointed attorney objected to the admission of the statement on the grounds that Miranda was not informed of his rights. Given the amount of evidence, including the confession itself, the court overruled the objection. After being found guilty and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for his crimes, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Due to the fact that Miranda failed to specifically request an attorney, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The case was then forwarded to the Supreme Court along with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v.