Upper Tier Rights
There are many cases in the history of constitutional law that involve the wording of the United States Constitution. One case that deals with many parts of the constitution is Miranda v Arizona. This was a case that the Supreme Court voted on in 1966. This is a case of upper tier rights, because it deals with the constitutional rights. It mostly deals with the fourteenth amendment which is a right to due process and the sixth amendment which is a right to counsel.
A suspect, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested on mostly circumstantial evidence for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female. During the interrogation by the police Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and rape of the female. He also signed a paper that said he was giving a voluntary statement to the police and that the police were not forcing him to confess to the crimes which he may or may not have committed. To most this sounds like the police did an alright job they got a confession out of him and there was no signs of abuse by the police. So many would say what is the problem? 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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document