Title: Miranda Warning
Name: Peta-Gaye Walker Virginia Collage Time spent: 2 days
Researching previous cases on a Miranda warning is one of the best ways to garner information as to the ways and procedures in how an officer goes about giving this warning. The main cases that will layout the foundation of this research is the original case of Miranda v. Arizona. In order to understand the main idea of what is the Miranda warning and how it is done, as well as the issues surrounding this warning then, one must study where it originated. During research it is concluded that such warning cannot be given without a person being in custody. Several informal talks with past law professors was done in attempt to prove whether or not the officer should have given Randy his rights prior to his confession of the bank robbery. During this several questions were addressed, questions such as, by law should a Miranda warning be given upon confession? Was randy in police custody at the time of the confession and when must this warning be given. The confession of randy cannot be ignored therefore some investigation must be done concerning the confession of the robbery. The elements of a bank robbery were researched as to come to a decision about the alleged criminal position of Randy. After which one must consider, was Randay’s alleged robbery an actual crime, what constitutes a crime? If the investigation of Randy’s confession is proven to be true, should he be then formally arrested by the officers? If the confessions are proven to be true then the officer should then give him the Miranda warning.
I confess I robbed the bank, should I be held in custody, should I be given a Miranda warning? A Miranda warning is given to a suspect who is formally arrested to be questioned. An arrest in such a case by law is considered to be an act when an officer believes to have sufficient evidence to a lead to a criminal activity, (Siegel, 2008). The Miranda warning is a number of rights given to suspect before being questioned, the Miranda rights or warning originated from the case of Miranda v. Arizona. According to David BEST of Université Libre de Bruxelles “in March 1963, eighteen year old Lois Ann Jameson was kidnapped and raped. The victim described to her brother-in –law precisely what happened including the description of the car she was abducted and raped in. A few days later while walking down the street her brother-in-law recognized the car, which lead to the formal identification of Miranda by the victim, and to his arrest and confession. This was the beginning of this famous case. He signed a confession to the rape charge (after two hours of questioning by the police officers) which was brought as evidence against him. The main issue was that Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel, and he was not advised of his right to remain silent or that his statements would be used against him during the interrogation before being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he had already given orally”. When considering the issues that are associated with this said warning one must take into consideration many surrounding circumstances such as, in relation to the scenario presented, was Randy under arrest when the confession was made? Was he held in custody against his will, when the confession was made? Can randy’s statement of confession be taken into account with just his confession? If the investigation is proven to be true, will his confessions be used against him? Is Randy confession sufficed to be constituted as a robbery, what then are the elements of a robbery? Research has shown that in order for an...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document