Court Case Number 202: First Degree Murder

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.

Supreme Court in which the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court was reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court held that “Due process requires, in such proceedings, that adequate written notice be afforded the child and his parents or guardian. Such notice must inform them "of the specific issues that they must meet," and must be given "at the earliest practicable time, and, in any event, sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation." Notice here was neither timely nor adequately specific, nor was there waiver of the right to constitutionally adequate notice (In re Gault, 1967, pp. 31-34). It also held the “In such proceedings, the child and his parents must be advised of their right to be represented by counsel and, if they are unable to afford counsel, that counsel will be appointed to represent the child. Mrs. Gault's statement at the habeas corpus hearing that she had known she could employ counsel, is not "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment' of a fully known right"(In re Gaul,, 1967, pp. 34-42). In regards to the complainant not being present, the Court found that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable in such proceedings. Lastly, the Court held that absent a valid confession, a juvenile in such proceedings must be afforded the rights of confrontation and sworn testimony of witnesses available for cross-examination (In re Gault, 1967, pp.

". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority.

In the case Miranda vs. Arizona. This case goes against the 5th and 6th amendments. Miranda says that the police had violated his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Miranda addressed the Escobedo rule which states evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. Also addressed was the Gideon rule which states all felony defendants have the right to attorney. But the police say that Miranda completely voluntarily signed the confession.

It states that the government cannot make a person testify against themselves. A trial relies on witnesses and evidence and not the testimony of the accused.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were incorrect and in other cases involving due process this amendment was abused. In similar cases the court ruled in favor of the defendant because he was harmed during the interrogation process.

     The Supreme Court first dealt with the issue in 1932, in the Scottsboro Case, POWELL v. ALABAMA. DUE PROCESS OF LAW required al least a “hearing,” Justice GEORGE H. SUTHERLAND said, and the presence of the counsel was “fundamental” to a meaningful hearing.

In conclusion, the Fifth Amendment privilege against Self-Incrimination only gives people the right to refuse to testify to the government if such testimony will incriminate them of a crime. Law enforcement cannot force the defendant to make any testimonial that can be used as evidence that he/she is guilty of the crime. It does not allow the right to refuse other physical evidence such as handwriting, to speak certain words, fingerprints, blood samples, and tissue samples or to refuse to stand in a police lineup even if these compelled documents contain incriminating evidence. Unless any of the documents is private meaning unknown to the government, the act of the defendant producing these documents can implicate a violation of the Fifth Amendment right.

     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 case of Miranda v Arizona concerned the issue of whether police interrogatory practices on persons without notifying such persons on their protection against self-incrimination and their right to counsel amounted to the violation of the 5th Amendment. In an unusual decision of 5-4, the court ruled that incriminating evidence stated by the accused cannot be admissible in a court

The Supreme Court agreed by a 5-4 vote. The majority and minority had different views

In Quinn v. United States(5) one of the dissenting judges expressed his wholehearted assent to the judicial amendment of the self-incrimination clause by striking the words "in any criminal case" therefrom, but he protested against the new rule laid down by the Court in that case, under which a contumacious witness must now be given a formula for claiming the privilege and after refusal to answer must be pleaded with a second time in order to get his "intent" not to answer set up. Justice Harlan, being new and uninitiated, couldn't approve the "new rule." He said:

The Fifth Amendment is the right for an individual to remain silent when asked a question that could potentially

Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966 )In the Miranda v Arizona case the defendant made statements in custodial interrogation that violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights. The defendant wasn't told his rights and

Martinez, where the supreme court believed that police officer didn’t violate the right to remain silent when using force when interrogating. Just taking a step back, I ask the question, how is it not violating the right when you force someone to speak by intimidation or to avoid being injured? The supreme court rules that the fifth amendment is only violated when the information is being used against the individual in a crime. We can’t really over rule what the supreme court says but, wouldn’t it make sense to inform others of this ruling. It could potentially prevent death or injury because that person would know that the truly didn’t have the right to remain silent when being