Preview

Supreme Court Cases

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
492 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Supreme Court Cases
Karan Puri
Miranda vs. Arizona (1966)

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. At trial, the prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966.

United States vs. Nixon (1974)

In 1972, President Richard Nixon, a Republican, was running for reelection against Senator George McGovern, a Democrat. Five months before the election, an alert security guard found burglars in the Democratic Party headquarters, which was located in Washington's Watergate apartment complex. Reporters following the story connected the burglars to high-ranking officials in the White House. Nixon denied any connection to the break-in. However, an independent Congressional investigation revealed the existence of audiotapes of the President discussing the break-in with its organizers. Nixon refused to turn the tapes over to Congress, claiming the tapes was covered by "executive privilege." He claimed that the President had the right to privileged communication that could not be looked at by any other branch of the government. The District Court ruled

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Facts: 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
  • Good Essays

    Us Govt. 4 5

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona- Having the right to remain silent during innterogation and questions. Accused of raping a girl.…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Supreme Court Major Cases

    • 4278 Words
    • 18 Pages

    The court’s Ruling was actually somewhat mixed. The court ruled that Marbury did have right to the commissions because the order would go into effect when Adams signed the papers. This was so because he was still in power when he signed them. The also ruled that Congress did not have the power to expand the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court beyond that which is specified in Article III of the Constitution. Their reasoning behind this was that the Constitution states “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors,…

    • 4278 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    and several of their friends were suspended for wearing the armbands. All of them did not return to school until after New Years Day. Acting through their…

    • 1037 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Arizona vs Miranda

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Brief Case Miranda v. Arizona Early in 1963, a 17 years old woman was kidnapped and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigated the case, and soon found and arrested a poor, and mentally disturbed man. The name of this man was Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was 23 years old when he was arrested. On March 13, 1963, Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and the rape. After 2 police officers interrogated him for 2 hours, he signed a confession to the rape charge. The form he signed included the following statement:…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    However, when Miranda was arrested he was not told his rights that are stated in amendment number five. On appeal, Miranda's lawyers pointed out that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, he was not told that everything that he said could be used against him. In the end of 1966, The United State's Supreme Court gave support to the defendant side by only a 5 - 4 majority. The Supreme Court decision detailed the principles governing police interrogation. In addition, they…

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda v. Arizona is a case that enabled the Supreme Court to fully identify and reiterate the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the police when arresting someone. The “Miranda Rights,” or “Miranda Warnings” are based off of these legal obligations: “Police must warn a suspect “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.”…

    • 746 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Even though in the beginning people said that the Miranda Rights would hurt criminal investigations, it still protected the rights of the people. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his right to remain silent, so even though he gave a written and oral confession they could not use it against him and had to dismiss his conviction. MIranda was tried again in 1966, and was sentenced to 20 to 30 years, for the kidnapping and rape of 18 year girl from Phoenix…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Supreme Court decision of 1966 of Miranda dictated a specific practice and conduct that law enforcement had to comply with when dealing with criminal suspects. It established that law enforcement was demanded to advise arrested persons or suspects of criminal acts that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and they have the right to an attorney. If they were not informed of these rights then a violation had occurred under the 5th Amendment regarding self-incrimination.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 2261 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Warnings

    • 632 Words
    • 3 Pages

    50 years ago, the Warren Court ruled over the case now known as Miranda v Arizona. While the case was happening, it seemed like another case that was not going to impact anything or anyone, but when Miranda v Arizona concluded, the Warren Court ruled, “that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination” or otherwise known as Miranda Rights. Now looking back on the past, Miranda v Arizona has proved to be one of the most important, if not the most important case in United States history.…

    • 632 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    History of Supreme Court

    • 1676 Words
    • 7 Pages

    History of the Supreme Court Royal Audencia The Royal Audencia was established on May 5, 1583, composed of a president, four oidores (justices) and a fiscal. The Audencia exercised both administrative and judicial functions. Its functions and structure were modified in 1815 when a chief justice replaced its president and the number of justices was increased. It came to be known as the Audencia Territorial de Manila with two branches, civil and criminal. A Royal Decree issued on July 24, 1861 converted it to a purely judicial body with its decisions appealable to the Court of Spain in Madrid. A territorial Audencia in Cebu and Audencia for criminal cases in Vigan were organized on February 26, 1898.…

    • 1676 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Supreme Court

    • 1162 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Nature’s Judicial Process in the Supreme Court consists of decision-making; based on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court has the capability to decide all extended cases; it also has the power to ascend under the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court its jurisdiction in the Judicial Branch of government. The Judicial Process interpret the laws that are established in the Supreme Court; thus, allowing the Court to exercise its power by shifting its system under the Constitutional laws of the United States. Throughout the Supreme Court, many cases have been rejected and are deposed of, but the Supreme Court approves only certain cases. Thus, the Supreme Court reconciles the issue of that specific case, which is then obtained and written by the Chief Justice of the Court as the final conclusion. Cases that are controversial result in great effect in the Supreme Court. For instance, Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 was one of the most controversial cases that the Supreme Court had to resolve; it violated the Equal Protection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. The case that violated an individual right was the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright in 1963, which violated the Sixth Amendment in a criminal case for the defendant. The case of Miranda vs. Arizona in 1966 is another controversial case that the Supreme Court had to base its judgment in order to have the individuals rights read to them due to the violation of the Fifth Amendment. Cases that are controversial have set many concerns throughout the judicial process of the Supreme Court; therefore, the progress of the people in the Judicial Branch was recognized to appreciate how far the Court has advanced and how superior in power the court is to institute an environment for its entire American people. Furthermore, the nature of the judicial process of the Supreme Court contains power on controversial cases throughout the conception by stipulating the Supreme Courts…

    • 1162 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hhbb

    • 966 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda Rights vs Arizona 1966 In 1966, the U. S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda decision was a departure from the established law in the area of police interrogation. Prior to Miranda, a confession would be suppressed only if a court determined it resulted from some actual coercion, threat, or promise. The Miranda decision was intended to protect suspects of their 5th Amendment right of no self-incrimination. The verdict of Miranda v. Arizona is an efficient way of informing criminal suspects of their rights established by the Constitution, allowing un-Constitutional confessions to be nullinvoid in the court of law. However, it does not enforce it well enough. For example, a statement taken in violation of Miranda can be used for impeachment purposes and deciding whether evidence derived from a Miranda violation is admissible. Also, Miranda applies to undercover police interrogation and prior to routine booking questions, protecting all suspect in American custody to be aware of their rights. Next, it says that police may not continue to interrogate a suspect after he makes a request for a lawyer. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on November 27, 1962, a young woman left the First National Bank of Arizona after attending night classes. A male suspect robbed the woman 1 of $8 at knife-point after forcing his way into her car. Four months later, the same suspect abducted an 18-year-old girl at knife-point and, after tying her hands and feet, drove to a secluded area of the desert and raped her. On March 13, 1963, police arrested 23-year-old Ernesto Arthur Miranda as a suspect in the two crimes. Miranda had a prior arrest record for armed robbery and a juvenile record for, among other things, attempted rape, assault, and burglary. Both victims viewed corporeal lineups and identified Miranda as their attacker. The police questioned Miranda, and he confessed to both crimes. He signed a confession to the rape that included…

    • 966 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays