Berghuis V. Thompkins Summary

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

This is an important debate for people accused of a crime because these rights could mean the difference between freedom and imprisonment. The two positions argue whether or not suspects should be read their Miranda Rights. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration. For example, evidence indicates that these rights could help guilty suspects avoid punishment. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that they will not. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that suspects should be read their Miranda Rights is the stronger position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that these rights

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

The court argued that the case was not about whether Miranda was guilty of the charges or not (he obviously confessed). Rather they argued that the case was about the way in which the interrogation was derived. The court’s ruling was meant to deal with the mistreatment of suspects by policemen during interrogation. Policemen are notorious for mistreating suspects in questioning (alovardohistory). Prior

The issues the court must decide are whether withholding Miranda Warnings to obtain a confession is considered admissible in court. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, Ms. Seibert was questioned before her

The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 affected the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of law enforcement. Miranda v. Arizona is known as the “right to remain silent” case. “I must tell you first you have the right to remain silent. If you choose not to remain silent, anything you say or write can and will be used as evidence against you in court. You have the right to consult a lawyer before any questioning, and you have the right to have the lawyer present with you during any questioning. You not only have the right to consult with a lawyer before any questioning, but if you lack the financial ability to retain a lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, and to be present with you

These amendments make it known that all people have the right to choose whether or not to speak when being questioned, consult with an attorney, be tried by and unbiased jury and be granted a public attorney if necessary (Document E). In the case of Ernesto Miranda, he did not know he had these rights. Therefore, the court could not see his confession as admissible. He was unaware that he could keep quiet if he wanted to and instead his inquisitors pushed him to confess. He did not know he had the right to a lawyer and therefore was on his own deciding how to go about the threat to his future. It has always been tradition that prosecutors could not take confessions into court if investigators used coercion or torture of any kind to gain the confession. This has been in place since the 1600s, as shown by the Laws of Connecticut Colony at the time, which stated “no man shall be forced … to confess any crime against himself” (Document B). This tradition has been present throughout centuries and has only been being more refined and updated as time goes on. The Miranda rulings allowed for yet another opportunity to revamp these rights not only by making sure that people have their rights, but also by making sure that they know explicitly that they have the

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

The Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda Warning, were derived from the 5th and 6th amendments in which they guarantee all people who are taken into arrest the right to trial, council, and to be appointed a lawyer. Although not explicitly expressed in the constitution, the Miranda rights provide the necessary precautions for self-incrimination and proper trial by providing those who have been arrested or incarcerated a brief description of the rights the individual is guaranteed to. It also provides the means for lawfully gathering information such as confessions and testimony from criminals for use in a court and trial. Often individuals who are taken into custody are not fully aware of one’s rights, especially the right to maintain silent, and this in turn can lead to information being given that may lead to the accused to be unlawfully tried and placed in jail for long periods of time.

Two years prior to Miranda, the Court held in Massiah v. United States that indicted defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel were violated were federal agents, acting in collusion with his co-defendant, deliberately elicited incriminating information from him, in the absence of his counsel, after his indictment. The court stated that the surreptitious nature of the interrogation made the violation even more serious. Thus, the government violated Massiah’s Sixth Amendment rights when it used an informant to elicit statements from him after he was indicted. Massiah did not know that he was speaking to a government informant and thus there was no issue of waiver of the right to counsel. Waiver first arose in Brewer v.Williams. The

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed Miranda’s appeal. It ruled that in the police interrogation of Miranda, the police did not follow the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment says that a criminal suspect has the right not to incriminate himself, or “to be a witness against himself”. The Sixth Amendment says that a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney. Before Miranda’s interrogation, the police did not inform him of these rights. Miranda had no attorney during the interrogation. So Miranda’s conviction was reversed by the

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must inform detained criminal suspects of their constitutional rights prior to police interrogation. This decision was the result of the Miranda v. Arizona case. The case began in 1963 when a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with robbery, rape, and kidnapping. Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to his interrogation. In addition, during his questioning Miranda had no counsel present despite the fact that he had a history of mental instability. Within the two hours he was questioned, Miranda allegedly confessed to the charges. His confession then went on to serve as the only evidence presented at the trial. Miranda was

On March 13 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested on charges of rape and kidnapping of an 18 year old girl. He was interrogated but was never aware that the details of his interrogation would later be used against him in his court trial. Miranda stated that he was never spoken to concerning his right to silence and council as well as the confession being used against him in his trial. He would end up being sentenced to prison, however in June 1965, his attorneys would send the case to the Supreme Court arguing that Miranda had been violated of his right as stated in the 5th and 6th amendments. The case would lead to chief justice Earl Warren to write the first draft of the Miranda rights.

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.