The Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona is landmark case that has changed history and the manner of how defendants are notified of their rights before relinquishing any information about a crime. Miranda was implemented so no someone else could suffer for a crime and not become aware of their rights. Defendants should be informed of the charges and their rights before they are arrested for any alleged crime. If law enforcement officials fail to properly notify the accused of their rights the chances of them paying the price of crime could possibly be extremely slim to none. Or the defendant may face charges for a crime that he or she did not commit. It could also be in vain if that was information gather was done in an improper manner. I understand law enforcement
…show more content…
Ernesto did not complete the ninth grade and he had a history of mental instability. He also had a prior record which means he was not a stranger to the criminal justice system. In this case Miranda vs. Arizona the facts are Miranda was arrested and taken into custody and was identified in line-up by a witness accusing him of kidnapping and raping a woman. He was interrogated by two officers for two hours which lead in to a written and signed confession about the crime. No counsel was present nor was one offered during the interrogation phase. The only concrete evidence the prosecutor relied on was the falsified confession which is also known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” that was taped by the …show more content…
This decision gave rise to what has become known as the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warnings are the rights a defendant have once they are arrested for a crime or during the interrogation process. Certain jurisdictions have their own regulations as to the precise warning given to a person interrogated in police custody. The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspect, prior to police questioning must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. This law basically mean that any person arrested and taken in police custody must be thoroughly explained and informed of their right of the 5th and 6th amendment before a confession is orally spoken, and written.
This case was also impacted because the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and a self-incrimination. The police duties were to give these warnings compelled by the Constitutions Fifth Amendment “which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse” to be a witness against himself”, and Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an
Ernesto did not complete the ninth grade and he had a history of mental instability. He also had a prior record which means he was not a stranger to the criminal justice system. In this case Miranda vs. Arizona the facts are Miranda was arrested and taken into custody and was identified in line-up by a witness accusing him of kidnapping and raping a woman. He was interrogated by two officers for two hours which lead in to a written and signed confession about the crime. No counsel was present nor was one offered during the interrogation phase. The only concrete evidence the prosecutor relied on was the falsified confession which is also known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” that was taped by the …show more content…
This decision gave rise to what has become known as the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warnings are the rights a defendant have once they are arrested for a crime or during the interrogation process. Certain jurisdictions have their own regulations as to the precise warning given to a person interrogated in police custody. The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspect, prior to police questioning must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. This law basically mean that any person arrested and taken in police custody must be thoroughly explained and informed of their right of the 5th and 6th amendment before a confession is orally spoken, and written.
This case was also impacted because the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and a self-incrimination. The police duties were to give these warnings compelled by the Constitutions Fifth Amendment “which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse” to be a witness against himself”, and Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an