Due Process and Crime Control

“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

“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 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

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

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

In this case Miranda was not told his rights, and he served as a witness against himself. Also, as soon as he was arrested he should have been read his rights and should have known that he had the right to not speak until he had an attorney with him. Miranda did not know this at the time he was arrested. Miranda’s team appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, the highest state court in Arizona. The court upheld the lower court's decision, therefore keeping the punishment. About 3 years later, the US Supreme Court read over the Miranda V Arizona case. They had seen the paper that had Miranda's confession written on saying “this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” However, they were certain that Miranda was not told his rights by the

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.

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

Facts: Miranda gave incriminating evidence during police interrogations without prior notification of their fights under the 5th amendment.

Miranda vs. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of the cases, the defendant was questioned without being given warning of his Fifth Amendment rights. In each of the cases, the questioning resulted in oral admissions, and three of the cases resulted in signed statements that were later admitted at trial. At trial, each defendant was found guilty.

With the warning also being so common in the media, the actual meaning and representation of the warning is mostly lost to many suspects not fully understanding what its full meaning is. They may not be of sound mind or they may even be too emotional to grasp its meaning that it is their rights to use and exercise. Whatever be the case, the individual’s emotional and mental state plays a huge part in how they comprehend what is going on. In most cases, the reading of the warning is crucial to how the suspect interprets it. If the officer states it angrily, the suspect may be too intimidated to understand that they have been told their rights rather than if the officer were to state it calmly and in a mild tone. Most individuals also come from a background where they do not possess enough familiarity with the law or the Constitution to be able to exercise these rights (Galatzer-Levy & Galatzer-Levy, 2012). Shortly after the Miranda decision came into being, its value questioned as to whether it would be of use to everyday law enforcement. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that in his opinion concerning the Miranda case, "cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime." The court’s ruling that all interrogations involve the “application of state power” has had the effect that some police officers will go to drastic measures to obtain the confession that they so desire (Zalman & Smith, 2007). The suspect may also decide to waive their rights. Since there is not a standard rule in place regarding the waiver, some states have decided that the best way they can handle it would be to have the suspect sign a waiver form

((2015). 14th Amendment) Miranda v. Arizona case Ernesto Miranda was not given equal rights throughout his arrest. From the right to remain silent, self-incrimination, and to right to attorney these are the basic step to obtaining a proper way to arrest. This is lead to the Miranda Right’s “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. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” (What Are Your…Rights? (2015).)

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

The last fifty years of American law have changed drastically due to numerous “landmark” court cases. For those who have studied these landmark cases, Miranda v. Arizona is one of the most crucial of these cases. Until the Miranda v. Arizona trial of 1966, when a person was arrested, they were not given a fair awareness of their rights as a citizen, which often times resulted in the self incrimination or unknowingly admitting to guilt (McBride). The Miranda decision provided a constitutional and reasonable way of allowing the suspect to fully embrace their fifth and sixth amendment rights without any form of admission of guilt.

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.