Florida Vs. Fernandez Case Study

In 1966 , Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping , and robbery. The problem was that Miranda was not informed of his rights before the police interrogation and while the two hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to committing the crimes which police recorded without Mirandas Knowledge. McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." PBS. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.. Miranda who did not even finish the 9th grade and also is known to have a history of being mentally unstable, who did not have any counsel by his side during the interrogation. In court at his trial the prosecution’s case was focused mainly of his confession and thats about it, no matter what in

FACTS: Graham, 16 years old, was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Less than six months after being released, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery with two accomplices. After that, he was sentenced to life imprison without the possibility of parole.

The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.

A witness accused Ernesto Miranda, A poor Mexican immigrant in Arizona in 1963 for committing a crime. When the police arrested Miranda, they did not tell Miranda his rights to not self incriminate and that he was appointed to an attorney if he could not provide one

Maria A. Cardona, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M v. State of Florida.

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

ISSUE: (1) The police department continued with the interrogations process that led to incriminating statements without reading the defendant’s rights.

In the case of Johnson vs. Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson was brought to court for burning the American Flag outside of the convention center during the Republican National Convention. The incident occurred in Dallas Texas in the year 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President. The report stated that Johnson was protesting against Reagan’s policies in America. Johnson was proved to be a member of a private institution that promoted the communist movement. His protest against Reagan expressed his dissatisfaction. Johnson was arrested and charged for violating a Texas statue fined $2000 dollars for his actions. In response to the fine, Johnson appealed and took his case to the United States Supreme Court.

Even though Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to prison and spent 11years in the correctional system, his case became famous and obtained historical significance. Specifically, the society was alarmed by the increasing police powers and negligence on the duty, which may lead to self-incrimination (Zalman, 2010). Given that Miranda was not aware of his Fifth Amendment right and was not given any warning, the police certainly violated the law; therefore, the prosecution could not have utilized Miranda’s confession as the evidence in a criminal trial. This fact was later used in the newspapers and other media to create a controversy. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights gained significant attention in public because they provided suspected persons

Between February and March of 1966 the Supreme Court case, Miranda vs. Arizona took place (Worrall, 2015). In this case, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona because he was accused of raping a woman. Miranda was interrogated by officers for two hours before confessing both written and orally. He was charged with kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. While this case is the main thing upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling, there were three other cases backing their decision – Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Based on these three cases, the Supreme Court upheld that before any questioning a suspect must be aware that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation (Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v Arizona). This ruling has been implied in all criminal cases since and anytime these rights are not read to a suspect they are acquitted. Miranda vs. Arizona has been the face of a very big change in the way the criminal justice system is run and will continue to be for many years to come.

The issues presented in this case raise question to the admissibility of statements obtained from individuals engaged in custodial police interviews/interrogations and whether they are admissible against them in a criminal court when the individual has not been made aware of his constitutional rights and the statements are not freely provided, but are coerced or a product of harassment or a promise by authorities Likewise, “whether procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the fifth Amendment of the constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself are necessary”

Ernesto Miranda was charged for rape and kidnapping and was identified by the victim during a police lineup. He was later interrogated in police custody without being informed his fifth and sixth amendment rights. As a result, he did not have an attorney present with him and did not know of self-incrimination.

Two weeks ago the Florida Gators hosted offensive lineman named Cleveland Reed, who is from Lakeland, Fl.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. When the police officers were interrogating him but they did not read his Miranda rights to him. Without the Miranda rights he confessed everything he did. He had to hand written everything. When they went to court the judge found out that the police officers

to the Illinois Supreme Court, which initially held the confession inadmissible and reversed the conviction. Illinois petitioned for rehearing and the court then affirmed the conviction. Escobedo appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU argued before the court as an impartial advisor on behalf of Escobedo. Later developments from this case was this holding was later implicitly overruled by Miranda V. Arizona in 1966, and the Supreme Court held that pre-indictment interrogations violate the Fifth Amendment, not the Sixth Amendment. As Escobedo was questioned during a custodial interrogation, the result for the appellant would have been the same. (wikipedia, 2016)