Due Process and Crime Control

2321 WordsApr 30, 201310 Pages
The Warren Court left an unprecedented legacy of judicial activism in the area of civil rights law as well as in the area of civil liberties—specifically, the rights of the accused as addressed in Amendments 4 through 8. In the period from 1961 to 1969, the Warren Court examined almost every aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State. This process became known as the “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights. During those years, cases concerning the right to legal counsel, confessions, searches, and the treatment of juvenile criminals all appeared on the Court's docket. The Warren Court's began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, which was…show more content…
He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction was based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was just. The Supreme Court should uphold his conviction and should not further cripple the work of police. By a 5-4 margin, the Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination” are followed. The current practice of 'incommunicado' interrogation is that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself. Warren then summarized the case, measuring it against the “fundamental fairness” standards the Court had established. “It is clear,” he wrote, “that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. Without these warnings [his] statements were inadmissible. The mere fact that he signed a statement which contained a typed-in clause stating that he had 'full knowledge' of his 'legal rights' does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights.” Turning to the standard for a valid waiver of rights, Warren wrote: “A valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are
Open Document