Preview

Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1503 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study
In the Miranda vs Arizona case Miranda established that the police are required to inform arrested persons that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. The case involved a claim by the plaintiff that the state of Arizona, by obtaining a confession from him without having informed him of his right to have a lawyer present, had violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment regarding self incrimination. Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape and was interrogated for a long period of time. This interrogation resulted in a signed confession. At court Miranda lawyer argued that the confession was obtained from a person who does not understand their rights. The court agreed that a person should be informed of their rights and understand them before the police …show more content…
This goes back to letting a guilty man walk loose amongst the citizens, what they should have done was let go of the fact that they did not read him his rights in a timely manner. He still got read his rights and he probably understood them but he just did not want to get accused for the crime that he committed. So in my belief the case should have gotten overturned by the Miranda vs Arizona case. In today’s society almost all policemen never forget to read the person under arrest their rights because they know about the Miranda vs Arizona case. I believe that they have put more pressure on the police to say the rights because its a matter of the criminal getting let go because they forgot to read them even if the person already knows their rights. If in case that that does happen I still would not let the criminal go if the case was for something bad or something that would harm
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Brief in Irac Format
    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Brief in Irac Format

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Arizona police took him to the police station and interrogated him for two hours. After the interrogation, Mr. Miranda had confessed to the crimes, and provided officers with a written confession. Language at the top of the written confession stated that the confession was given freely and voluntarily without any threats or promises. In addition, the language stated that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights. However, Mr. Miranda was not advised that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation. Subsequently, the statement was entered into evidence at trial, and Mr. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to prison.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V Arizona Case Study
    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda V Arizona Case Study

    FACTS: The cases of Mr. Miranda, Mr. Vignera, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Westover had similar cases, regarding the admissibility of their confessions. These cases were then addressed together by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Miranda was identified by a witness and arrested, but was not notified of his rights, although he singed a written confession after several hours of interrogation that stated that he was aware of the rights he was not notified about. A jury was presented an oral admission of guilt, as well as the written confession. The jury found Mr. Miranda guilty of murder and rape, and sentenced him to 20-30 years on both counts. Mr. Vignera, who was the second defendant, was arrested for a…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs. Arizon Supreme Court Case
    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda Vs. Arizon Supreme Court Case

    Why is this even considered a constitutional law case? How did Miranda v. Arizona turn into a landmark United States Supreme Court case? When this case went to trial Miranda’s court appointed attorney found out that the police never informed Miranda of his Constitutional right to counsel. So in fact by not informing Miranda that he had the right to counsel the police violated his Fourteenth Amendment which is the right to due process and his sixth amendment which is a right to counsel. If he would have had counsel present in the room he may never have signed that form confessing to the kidnapping and rape of that 18 year old woman. Miranda’s court appointed attorney at trial objected to the confession saying that his clients fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights were violated. The trial judge overruled the objection mainly because the defendant never formally asked to have an attorney present or to see or speak with his attorney. So Miranda was convicted of the crime and sent to up to 30 years in prison. Miranda’s attorney the appealed the decision all the way up to the Arizona supreme court. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that they also believed that his rights were not violated because he never asked for an…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona Essay Example
    • 622 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona Essay Example

    Miranda's defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction.…

    • 622 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    My Supreme Court Case: Miranda V. Arizona
    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages

    My Supreme Court Case: Miranda V. Arizona

    By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” The Court also held that “without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” As those reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart.…

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis
    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages

    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).…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona
    • 2098 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    Mіrаndа vs. Arizona was а case that consіdеrеd the rights of the dеfеndаnts in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Indіvіduаl rights did not change with the Mіrаndа 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 the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless а suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in а court of law (Mіrаndа v. Arizona, 1966). The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow а 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, and make sure that the suspect understands them.…

    • 2098 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay
    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    Some of the judges were not pleased with the ruling, they stated that Miranda’s written statement confessing to the crimes should not be completely ruled out and not used as evidence in the case in court. Justice Tom C. Clark claimed in his dissenting opinion, “the majority’s opinion created an unnecessary strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties” (Miranda v. Arizona). The judges that ruled in favor of Maranda stated that an individual who is being persecuted under the law should indeed know their rights, a defendant must be made aware of their right to remain silent prior to any interrogation, and they have the right for an attorney to be present during the interrogation. This case is important because it created the Miranda warning as a preventative criminal procedure to ensure that when criminals who are being prosecuted they are made aware that their fifth amendment is not being violated and that anything they say will be used against them in a court of…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona
    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which passed 5–4. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.…

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    The first court ruling where Miranda was found guilty to armed robbery was thrown out after his case was and brought up to the Supreme Court. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have informed them of their rights, which are now called Miranda Rights. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights while in custody, therefore any confessions he made could not be used against him in court. At the Supreme Court level, the conviction was overthrown because he was not informed of his right against self incrimination and his right to remain silent. The case was later re-tried without using his confessions in the trial. Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years for armed robbery. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping, he could not be prosecuted for it because there was not enough evidence to show he was the offender in those crimes once his confession was thrown out. Chief justice, Earl Warren established the…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Criminal Liability In The Miranda Vs. Arizona Supreme Court Case
    • 906 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Criminal Liability In The Miranda Vs. Arizona Supreme Court Case

    You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you. These famous words came from Miranda vs. Arizona, a Supreme Court case that took place March 13, 1963 when Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department, who failed to advise him of his rights to an attorney and his rights to remain silent. This case has given alleged offenders a chance to have their voice be heard and gives them an opportunity to have a fair trial.…

    • 906 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    The Miranda Concept and Why
    • 316 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Miranda Concept and Why

    I do believe that Miranda warnings are still a valid concept, and that it is very necessary for officers to inform the public of their rights when needed.…

    • 316 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Getting Rid of Miranda Rights
    • 922 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Getting Rid of Miranda Rights

    The Miranda rights are the rights a police offer is required to say to someone when the officer arrests that person. It is the warning that officers of the law give suspects so they know about their rights before they are interrogated. It was a law made after the conclusions of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. The case was very close as it was a 5-4 decision. The court ruled that any type of evidence, whether it is incriminating or proof of innocence, can be used as evidence in a case; however it can only be used if the police let the suspect know that they have the right to an attorney before and during questioning and also that the suspect can be silent to avoid self-incrimination before an interrogation. It is now a staple when police arrests are made. In this paper, I will explain why I believe that the Miranda Rights are not necessary anymore.…

    • 922 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    What Does Miranda Rights Mean To You
    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages

    What Does Miranda Rights Mean To You

    The Miranda Rights are part of a preventative criminal procedure rule that states law enforcement are required to administer Miranda Rights to an individual who is in custody and is subject to direct questioning for a criminal violation of law. When a person is detained or taken into custodial arrest and interrogated for a criminal offense, if he or she wishes to remain silent the individual must expressly state that he or she chooses to remain silent. In addition, if the individual asserts that he or she wishes to speak to an attorney or have an attorney present, police must then cease interrogations and wait until…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    Importance Of The Fourth Amendment
    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Importance Of The Fourth Amendment

    Although Miranda had not questioned the officer’s or requested for an attorney, the Supreme Court of Arizona stated that Miranda’s constitutional rights had not been violated. Miranda also suffered with a mental instability and did not request for counsel to be present during the case (Miranda, 2006). Miranda appealed the U.S. Supreme Courts decision. After review, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that the evidence collected could not be used against Miranda due to Miranda not being informed of his rights before he was interrogated (Miranda, 2006). After this case, a series of “Miranda rights” were put into place to protect a defendant who is being arrested and interrogated (Miranda, 2006).…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More