CJA201Case2

.docx

School

Trident University International *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

201

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ElderParrotMaster912

1 Running Head: Miranda Law Miranda Law Gerardo Romero Maldonado Trident University International

2 Miranda Law Miranda Law “You have the right to remain silent” has been popularized with Hollywood police drama series, but a staple in the American justice system. In the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona made U.S. headlines news after Ernesto Miranda was arrested on charges of kidnap and rape. Mr. Miranda argued in court that he was never told of certain rights he was entitled to before a lengthy interrogation by police. The case sparked much debate and controversy, along with the creation of Miranda rights. But how effective is Miranda Law? For this assignment we will discuss important protections offered by Miranda rights, and if any recent cases have altered Miranda rights enforcement. In addition, we will also review the role of Miranda law in dealing with terrorism. Let's now delve into a deeper exploration of the effectiveness of Miranda Law, examining the vital protections it offers and any recent developments in its enforcement. Miranda Protections The case of Miranda v. Arizona closely examined rights individuals have, especially during interactions with law enforcement. The case alleged that Mr. Miranda had certain rights violated as he was not fully given the scope of said rights. The Supreme Court, also known as SCOTUS, scrutinized the 5 th and 6 th amendments, as those are the rights Mr. Miranda was not made aware of. For this case, the court argued of the following literature of the amendments: the right to remain silent from the 5 th amendment and the right to legal counsel of the 6 th amendment (Library of Congress, n.d.). The accused is protected from testifying against himself in any criminal case by the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. In other words, they may invoke this right in order to prevent any statements that may be damaging to his/herself during police interrogation (Maclin, 2016). Furthermore, a criminal defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment is crucial for ensuring that he/she is treated fairly throughout all the

3 Miranda Law criminal procedures brought against him/her. This gives the accused the right to seek counsel and if none can be afforded, then they may be provided one (Williams, 2004). These protections are vital to the American society as these protections collectively safeguard people’s 5 th Amendment rights against self-incrimination and their 6 th Amendment right to counsel to ensure fairness in the criminal justice process. Miranda law has played a major role in protecting accused' rights and ensuring due process in the US. It is important, however, that these constitutional rights can be subject to interpretation and legal challenges in specific cases and contexts. Newer cases can alter the effect of Miranda rights. Cases Altering “Miranda Law” The Supreme Court has examined more cases and have left an indelible mark on the enforcement and interpretation of Miranda rights, altering criminal procedures and the protections afforded to individuals while in police custody. The 1994 case of Davis v. United States provided new insight and interpretation on the right to legal counsel stemming from the 6 th Amendment. The outcome was a decision by SCOTUS that clarified the requirements for invoking the right to counsel during police interrogations. SCOTUS held that a suspect must unambiguously request an attorney in order to trigger their right to counsel under the 6 th Amendment. Vague or ambiguous request for an attorney is insufficient to invoke the suspects right (Davis v. United States, 1994). The defendant, Davis, made statements during interrogation and were admitted as evidence because his request for an attorney was not considered clear and unequivocal. His remarks of “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” were not enough. The ruling established a stricter standard for invoking the right to an attorney during police interrogations, emphasizing the importance of clarity in a suspect's request for legal counsel. The impact was on how law enforcement officers and the courts interpret and apply Miranda rights when it comes to

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help