Civil Rights Case Study

First, Miranda v. Arizona all started on March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old Phoenix woman told police that she had been kidnapped, taken to a part of desert land in Arizona, and was raped. She was given a polygraph test, but the results were inadequate. While tracking the license plate number, they came upon a vehicle, similar to that of the women’s attacker, linking them to a man named Ernesto Miranda, who was booked for being a peeping tom. When they put a police line-up for the women to pick out Ernesto, she couldn’t identify, but he was still questioned by police. Police began to interrogate Mr. Miranda and never read him his rights, before interrogation. The interrogation lasted two- hours, in which Miranda supposedly admitted to committing the crimes, and the police had an audio recording of the entire interview. Ernesto had never finished ninth grade and had a history of mental uncertainty.

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

In March of 1963, the Phoenix Police Department brought in an accused to their departments to investigate him. Upon arriving to the police department two detectives interrogated him about the rape of a mildly, handicap young woman and a kidnap. After two hours of interrogating the suspect, Ernesto Miranda, confessed to the crime just after the detectives told him the victim had identified him in a lineup. Ernesto Miranda was found guilty of both crimes and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison. In 1966, three years later, Miranda’s sentence was overturned by the Supreme Court due to the fact that Miranda was not notified about his fifth or sixth amendment. His fifth amendment gave him the right to avoid self-incrimination by

Gideon v. Wainwright was a 1963 Supreme Court case in which Clarence Earl Gideon was the petitioner, while Louie Wainwright, the Secretary of the Florida Division of Corrections at the time, was the respondent. In Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, a felony as dictated by Florida law. Upon appearing in court, Gideon asked to be represented by appointed counsel, as he could not afford an attorney, but he was denied by the trial judge. At the time, Florida law only allowed appointment of counsel to those who had been charged with capital offenses. Gideon represented himself at trial, making opening statements, calling his own witnesses, and cross examining opposing witnesses.

In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall in Florida. When he went to trial, he attempted to get an attorney to help him in court to get his crime reduced to a misdemeanor. The judge denied the attempt and he was left to fend for himself. Clarence Gideon was later proven guilty. He filed a habeas corpus petition that his denied attempt to an attorney was unlawful. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition. Gideon sent his petition, in 1963, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed this case, also known as the Gideon vs. Wainwright case, and decided that under the 6th amendment, the defendant is allowed to receive counsel when the defendant is being tried for a serious crime. The Gideon

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a official felony, when he broke into a pool room and had thoughts to commit a serious misdemeanor offense. He was not a rich man; therefore he could not afford a lawyer to serve on his defense. He had asked the judge to appoint him one, because according to the sixth amendment, one has the right to an attorney. However the state of Florida would not give him one. With this being said, Gideon was found guilty and sentenced five years in prison. During the five years he was in jail, he took the time to write a letter to the Florida Supreme Court explaining his situation and how he was not appointed an attorney. Due to his commitment, the case was sent to the Supreme Court.

Miranda vs. Arizona is one of the most crucial U.S. Supreme Court cases ever held in the United States. The case causes the Supreme Court to redefine law enforcement procedures before interrogations. The decision that was reached by the Supreme Court addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. All of these cases are similar in the fact that there was a custodial interrogation where the suspect was not properly informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and have a presence of an attorney. Additionally, in all of the cases besides Stewart v. California, the conviction was affirmed without any belief that there was a violation of constitutional rights.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the case begins with Gideon arrest in 1961. Clarence Earl Gideon was a drifter who was in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes. On January 3, 1961, 51-year-old Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. Giedion was charged with a felony in the state of Florida. Gideon appeared in the Florida court and informed the judge that he would like to be appointed counsel because he could not afford one. The judge denied Gideon’s request to be appointed an attorney. The courts stated that under Florida law the only time an indigent defendant is entitled to be appointed counsel is when

Wainwright (1963). A burglary took place late one night in Panama City, Florida where a person broke open a business door kicked in a cigarette machine and music player. The burglar also stole money from a cash register and witnesses say they saw a man named Clarence Earl Gideon in the general area of the pool room with money in his pocket and a wine bottle in his hand. Based only on a person’s accusation the police arrested Gideon and charged him with breaking and entering a private business with intent to commit larceny. Gideon appeared in court without a lawyer because he was not wealthy enough to afford one. The court told Gideon that they could not appoint a counsel to represent him. Under state law in Florida, only defendants charged with capital offenses are eligible to receive an appointed counsel. Gideon argued that the United States Supreme Court states that he is entitled to be represented by counsel. With the court declining Gideon’s request to have an appointed counsel, Gideon was required to represent himself and conduct his own defense. The jury came back with a guilty verdict and Gideon was sentenced to serve 5 years in a state prison. Gideon made use of his time in jail and appealed with an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court came back saying that the 6th Amendment to the Constitution does not say that courts can pick and choose who can

The Miranda v. Arizona case holds that a person in police custody cannot be questioned without being told that he or she has the right to remain silent, he or she has the right to a lawyer (at government expense if the person can’t pay for it, and lastly that anything the person says after knowing of these rights can be used as evidence of guilt at trial. This case makes sure that a person in custody will not give up without knowing the Fifth amendment, which gives the criminal the right to refuse to be a witness against themself and the sixth amendment, which gives the criminal a right to a lawyer. Without these two fundamental rights, the court will rule the case “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be used for the product of their free choice.”

Miranda vs Arizona case (1966) Was ernesto advised of his Fifth amendment right, which is the right not to be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself when interrogated by the police? Was his confession coerced? In the absence of legal counsel, was Miranda's confession to kidnapping and raping unconstitutional?

The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona is one of many cases that made an impact on the future of our criminal justice system. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix and accused of kidnapping a raping a young woman. He was interrogated for two hours and signed a confession that later formed the basis of his later conviction on the charges. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's conviction was unconstitutional because the interrogation occurred before the suspect was advised of his rights. Additionally, any evidence obtained before the suspect is advised of his rights cannot be used against him. The Miranda rights are to ensure the protection of individual rights was guaranteed under the Constitution. To ensure that proper

A man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix on suspicion that he had been involved in the kidnapping and rape of a young girl. After being arrested, Miranda was questioned by investigators. Later in the interrogation, investigators handed Miranda a signed confession to fill out. Included in that form was a disclaimed by Miranda that he understood his rights and that he freely waived them. Miranda, however, had not been told prior to signing that statement that he had the right to attorney. Likewise, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, and he was not advised that the statements he made in the interview could be used against him if he went to trial. At trial, prosecutors sought to use the confession as evidence against Miranda, and his attorneys objected. The objection was overruled, and Miranda was convicted, largely on the strength of his confession. His lawyers appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and when the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, the lawyers appealed further to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The case centred on Clarence Gideon, who was charged with a felony for allegedly burglarizing a pool hall in Panama City, Florida, in the year of 1961. During his first trial he had requested an attorney that was appointed by the court but was denied. Prosecutors had produced witnesses who had seen Gideon at the exterior of the pool hall near the time of the break-in, but none saw him actually commit the crime. Gideon examined witnesses, but he was unable to validate their credibility or highlight the contradictions in their testimony. The jury had found him guilty, then he was eventually given a five year prison sentence. Gideon v. Wainwright, was the landmark case of 1963 in U.S Supreme Court history. The Supreme Court ruled that states are

Three other cases were reviewed by the Supreme Court along with Miranda V. Arizona and combined to make up the legal reasoning behind what we now know as the Miranda warning. In Vignera V. New York, the accused was questioned by police, verbally confessed to a crime, and signed a written confession, all without being advised of his right to counsel (Miranda V. Arizona). In Westover V. United States, Westover was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, was not informed he had the right to an attorney, and was interrogated and made to sign several statements (Miranda V. Arizona). Similarly, in California V. Stewart, law enforcement detained and interrogated Stewart for five days without advising him of his Fifth Amendment rights (Miranda V. Arizona). Together, all four cases set the precedence for constitutional arrest procedure and under what circumstances