Due Process Of Law: Miranda V. Arizona

Miranda versus Arizona is an important case that happened in the United States of America that has changed policing to what it is today. First, I will talk about the events leading to the arrest of a man named Ernesto Miranda. Then, I will talk about his trial, and next, on how this case has changed policing for the better. Lastly, I will talk about my point on this case and how I think it has affected the United States with policing.

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

Due process is when all criminal suspects are guaranteed that they will have the ability to question the evidence against them in an open format. This is where they are entitled to the same protections and procedures as everyone else during a criminal proceeding. As a result, anything that is denying them of these safeguards is violation of their basic rights. (Sundahl, 2011)

A landmark case that shifted the attention to due process was Miranda vs. Arizona. In this historical landmark case the Miranda Rights got there famous name from this man Ernesto Miranda. The attention shifted to due process because of the fact that Miranda pled his rights were not read to him, therefore he did not know he could not self-incriminate himself. He claimed she was coerced to giving his confession (Miranda v. Arizona). From then on the criminal justice system new they had to do something about criminals trying to flee from the law by saying their rights were not read to them. Police departments everywhere new something had to be done. Therefore the Miranda rights were born all criminals were being arrested had to be read their Miranda Rights, therefore they could not plead that their rights were not read to them that is why the Miranda Rights is an important part of the due process. It is not fair to the suspect to arrest him and not to let them know why they are being detained, or

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

Due Process of law can be defined as a right guaranteed in the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S.

Arizona was being appealed because even though Miranda out of his own free will confessed that yes he did rape and kidnapped Patty McGee. How ever rape victims in the state of Arizona have to resist to the utmost for it to be considered rape and McGee had not been able to say that she had done so ,and because of that Alvin Moore immediately appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court. Gribben, Mark. "MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED AMERICA .Alvin Moore asked was the statement that Miranda made voluntarily or forced on by the police who was interrogating him and was he asked in his brief ,a mexican man of little education wasn't told and so did not afforded all the safeguards to his rights as an American citizen provided by the Constitution of the United States. However by the time the Arizona high court got to consider Mirandas appeal in 1965, the U.S Supreme Court under Liberal Earl Warren had put in favor of the side of defendant's(Miranda) rights. The reason he had done so is because they had taken a step towards Moores trial claim that the suspect in case (Miranda),is entitled to a lawyer during police questioning and he was not given one when they were questioning him.Gribben, Mark. "MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED

One of the darkest moments for anyone is being the center of a criminal investigation. Many emotions can fuel statements that may not be in the best interest of the suspect. These statements can turn a suspect into a defendant relatively easy. Without proper, sufficient legal council, a defendant can be a convicted criminal. If the defendant was aware of his rights, the outcome could be inherently different. The United States is one of very few nations that will provide legal counsel for criminal matters. Every so often a person becomes a spectacle in our Judicial System and case law becomes of it. Sometimes, the case law is beneficial for the government such as Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, citing that strip searches of inmates regardless of the crimes they committed without probable cause is justified in the interest of inmate, staff, and jail safety. Other case law such as Miranda v. Arizona it reinforces constitutional rights for United States citizens. Miranda v. Arizona is case law that mandates the government to inform people of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. Many people often argue, so what. They are guilty, why do suspects have any rights anyway. Simply put, we are a Constitutional Democracy with established rules, norms and values. What makes our nation so wonderful is we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Circumstantial evidence leading authorities to assume a person is

Miranda v. Arizona was a case where Ernesto Miranda was accused of raping a women. At the time of his arrest he did not know his rights and that he had the right to remain silent and get a lawyer. He confessed orally and in a written form, but he never knew his

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.

     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

At issue in this case is whether Mr. Love was fully aware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court must decide if he had the mental facilities to make an intelligent and informed decision in making a statement without an attorney present. If he did not “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily” waive his Constitutional rights it could invalidate his confession. (State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 287 (Tenn. 2012))

In a Miranda analysis, the evidence that is not admissible in court is the defendant (Tom) testimony in which he proclaimed “I killed her and threw the baseball bat over the fence”. His testimony would not be considered as evidence because he was not Mirandized. According to Miranda v. Arizona, it states that a defendant rights must be read by the law enforcement at a slow pace to ensure that the defendant understands what is being read to him or her. Secondly, the bat can possibly be used as evidence providing that it was secure during the crime scene and pictures were taken. With the DNA of Tom, it may be used in the court at the prosecution

In our government today we have due process of law. Due process of law simply means that we have protection against a chance deprivation of life, liberty or property. Within the due process law, if you are to be accused of something it has to be under fair and reasonable circumstances. If we are ever to be arrested of something, under due process it commands that we are taken to court and showed a cause. It is very important that we have due process in the law for the people of the United States. Law enforcement always requires the balancing of two competing social concerns: on one hand, is the government's interest in protecting its citizens and prosecuting criminal conduct; on the other hand, is the right of

The Supreme Court of the United States of America often makes decisions, which change this great nation in a great way. These changes can affect society in many different ways. In many instances there is dissonance over their decisions and the court itself is often split as to how the views are looked upon. The effect of the Courts decision generates discourse and on occasion, violence. This is what happened in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. This case changed the history of this country and left a tremendous impact, which many challenge, the ruling and still protest today.