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
The Miranda v Arizona case was combined with three other similar cases. When the Supreme Court handed down the decision 5-4 in Miranda's favor, the resulting rights afforded to those being questioned or detained by police became popularly known as Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights must include the following as described by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren:
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.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that the states are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent indigent defendants who are unable to afford to pay for their own attorneys. Gideon extended the right to counsel and enforced its requirements upon the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) also stands as precedent to guarantee indigent defendants charged with serious offenses the right to court-appointed attorney at the government’s expense. The ruling in Gideon established the principle “that every man, the rich, the poor, and poor as well as rich, is entitled to the benefit of counsel” (Fortas,
Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. Clarence Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so under the 6th amendment he demonstrated his rights by asking the Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him. His request was denied and he was left to represent himself (Lewis, 1964). He did an awful job of defending himself during the trial and was found guilty (PBS, 2006). He then wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court from his prison cell stating that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.
There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and
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
In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court ruled on four separate cases that involved custodial interrogations. In each circumstance the defendant was interrogated by law enforcement investigators. In all of these cases, the interrogation took place in a secluded room that was totally closed off from the outside world. During all of these interrogations the suspects were never provided any form of notification about their right to counsel or their right to remain silent. As a result of these interrogations, three verbal admissions and one signed written admission were secured and admitted at their individual trials. In all of these cases the Supreme Court affirmed one case and reversed the three other case rulings. As a result, the Supreme Court rule that being told that you have the right to remain silent before an interrogation is an absolute right. They also ruled having legal counsel present before interrogation is an absolute right. This watershed Supreme Court decision changed the practice of law enforcement interrogation in very specific and positive ways.
Jon Argersinger was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, which was a misdemeanor in his state of Florida. This charge carried a 6 month sentence with a $1,000 fine. During his bench trial, Argersinger was not represented by an attorney. This called into question if the 6th and 14th Amendments guarantee a right to counsel to defendants accused of committing misdemeanors. In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided that no matter how petty the crime, the state was obligated to provide the accused with counsel. This is significant because previously, under the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling, only those accused of serious crimes were granted the right to counsel. However, now everyone is granted this
The Miranda v. Arizona case holds that a person in police custody cannot be questioned without being told that he or she has the right to remain silent, he or she has the right to a lawyer (at government expense if the person can’t pay for it, and lastly that anything the person says after knowing of these rights can be used as evidence of guilt at trial. This case makes sure that a person in custody will not give up without knowing the Fifth amendment, which gives the criminal the right to refuse to be a witness against themself and the sixth amendment, which gives the criminal a right to a lawyer. Without these two fundamental rights, the court will rule the case “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be used for the product of their free choice.”
This decision led to the creation of the Miranda Rule. This rule says that before law enforcement can take an individual into custody, they have to inform them of their 5th and 6th amendment rights. Police now are required to issue this warning: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult with your attorney before being questioned by the police, and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you before questioning….” If the Miranda warning is not read to the individual being arrested (or any time before being investigated), the evidence acquired during their interrogation is not admissible in court. (384 U.S. 436, 1966.) This case plays such a huge part in the criminal justice system today because people that are unaware of their rights as citizens can be protected. The decision in Miranda V. Arizona is constantly used as precedent today. Two cases that Miranda v Arizona has had precedent over are Missouri V. Seibert and Maryland V. Shatzer.
Miranda is specific to the right to counsel and against self-incrimination - 6th and 5th Amendments respectively - and is used in criminal proceedings rather than administrative matters (Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
Three years later Miranda's appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The court had made its decision to make procedural requirements that the law enforcement must follow, which overturned Miranda's conviction. Miranda v. Arizona caused a
A Supreme Court had held in another trial in 1942 claimed that an ordinary person could do defend himself or herself without legal representation. A court-appointed lawyer was required only if the defendant had mental or physical problems or health related problems that could excuse them the lawyer, if the case was unusually complicated, or the case involved "special circumstances." But, the problem was that none of these exceptions applied to Gideon. The Florida trial court had ruled that his request for a counsel and lawyer was denied. The biggest problem was that Gideon knew his amendments and found that his rights were being violated to not be represented with a lawyer.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court held that counsel was required by due process in all death penalty trials, in all capital case arraignments, and in cases involving an unsworn defendant who wishes to make a statement. Justice Stanley Reed revealed that the court was divided as to noncapital cases but that several justices felt that the Due Process Clause requires counsel for all persons charged with serious crime.(Zalman,2008).