Miranda Prosecution Case Study

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

A person doesn’t need a lawyer to help decide if they want to waive their Miranda rights. The compelling atmosphere of a custodial setting I believe is just as likely to influence a person’s decision to waive rights as it’s to influence the decision to confess.

Whenever a crime takes place, the police arrive at the scene and must tell the one they arrested the Miranda rights. In world book online: Stanley L. Kutler, Ph.D notes, “Miranda V. Arizona was a case in which the supreme court in the United States limited the power of police to question suspects.” Miranda was a criminal who kidnapped and raped several women. He was not able to understand English very well, for Spanish was his language. When he was arrested, he was interrogated for about two hours. He was not given his rights in Spanish, therefore he did understand what they had told him. This means he was not given his right to an attorney or to remain silent. He then confessed orally and in written form. He then took it to the supreme court.

The majority opinion in this case was for Miranda, the majority opinion was wrote by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Majority said that Miranda’s confession could not be used in court because the police had not informed Miranda of his rights to a attorney, and against self-incrimination, which are rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the fifth, and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. The fifth amendment says that suspects of crimes have to be informed of their rights during an arrest including the right to remain silent. The sixth amendment says that people have to be informed of right to a fair hearing after the arrest. (Miranda v. Arizona www.kid.laws.com)

In the book, they used the example of a couple who stated they participated in a large scale shoplifting scheme. This couple did not need the Miranda rights read to them because they already confessed to another source, in this case a large viewing source. Information gathered from other sources, which can include friends and family, don’t require the Miranda rights to be used in court. Therefore, to waive these rights, information must be obtained from another source, not directly from the police.

A man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix on suspicion that he had been involved in the kidnapping and rape of a young girl. After being arrested, Miranda was questioned by investigators. Later in the interrogation, investigators handed Miranda a signed confession to fill out. Included in that form was a disclaimed by Miranda that he understood his rights and that he freely waived them. Miranda, however, had not been told prior to signing that statement that he had the right to attorney. Likewise, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, and he was not advised that the statements he made in the interview could be used against him if he went to trial. At trial, prosecutors sought to use the confession as evidence against Miranda, and his attorneys objected. The objection was overruled, and Miranda was convicted, largely on the strength of his confession. His lawyers appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and when the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, the lawyers appealed further to the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case set a precedent for all police officers that for a confession to be admissible in court, it is necessary to state the suspect’s rights, known as the “Miranda Warning.” The Miranda Warnings educated a suspect of his rights and would no longer permit law enforcement to coerce involuntary confessions. The condensed version of the Miranda Warning reads as

The evidence they gathered will be inadmissible in court, in other words, the evidence cannot be used against the suspect. If police can prove that they did not need the suspect statements to find the evidence then the evidence can still be used in court. I believe the Miranda rights should always be required no matter what happens within the justice system. Even if a lot of people know these rights it still does not hurt to have them provided to a suspect because someone might remember the first part that explains that suspects have the right to remain silent, however they may not fully understand the rest of the Miranda rights. These rights are helpful with police interrogations, they allow suspects to remain silent and let an attorney fight for them. Every aspect of the Miranda rights are important and I believe they should always be recited by police officers because there are still some people that do not know these

Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present you will have the right to stop answering until you talk to a attorney” (Miranda v. Arizona – Miranda warning.2006). It's important to notify a suspects rights during an interrogation and during an arrest. To protect them against self-incrimination and to inform his/her that they can have a lawyer present during an interrogation. A lot of people were against the Miranda rights because it interfered with the police officers job, however it is shown to have no impact on their job

On March 16 1963, he was arrested in his home perhaps a day after the crime was committed. He was interrogated at the police station for two hours, and during that time, he signed a written confession of all of the crimes he had committed in the past 72 hours. The defense has been accused of not informing Miranda of his constitutional rights. However, attached to the written confession, was a typed disclaimer, that was also signed by Miranda, stating that he had full understanding of his rights during the interrogation and confession. The disclaimer said “I, _______________, do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement can be used against me. I, _____________, am _____ years of age and have completed the ________ grade in school.” (Stuart 6). Miranda filled in his information and signed the waiver at the bottom. At the bottom of his entire confession he wrote, “I have read and understand the foregoing statement and hereby swear to its truthfulness.” (Stuart 7). Therefore, Miranda has admitted to his crimes, sworn that they are completely truthful, and has sworn that he was aware of his constitutional

Arizona addresses the rights of American people expressed in the fifth amendment ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 1). This case called into question the actions of the police force coercing or threatening suspects until they incriminate themselves ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 1). Many of these suspects did not know and were not informed that they had protections under the law which allowed them to get out of these situations without incriminating themselves ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 2). In numerous cases, suspects were questioned for hours in uncomfortable positions until they finally confessed ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 2). This resulted in many false confessions where the suspect only confessed in order to get out of the situation and did not truly commit the crime. The decision made in the Miranda v. Arizona case resulted in the Miranda Rights ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 9). Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion stated that before any interrogation or questioning can begin, the accused person “must be warned that a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney” ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 9). It also states that these writes can be waived, but only if the accused person signs the waiver voluntarily, without coercion, and does so with full knowledge of what he is doing ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 9). The opinion goes on to say that, even after signing the waiver or answering previous questions, if at any point the accused person does not want to continue answering questions, he has the right to do so ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 9). Earl Warren quotes in his opinion that “It is not sufficient to do justice by obtaining a proper result by irregular or improper means” ("Miranda V. Arizona, 1966." 13). This case was a monumental case in Chief Justice Earl Warren’s tenure that helped in correcting how criminal justice was addressed and how suspects and

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”

Mr. Knight’s statements to officers in the patrol car cannot be suppressed for violation of Miranda rights because he was neither in custody not subjected to an interrogation. To suppress a statement under the Fifth Amendment for violation of Miranda rights, (1) the suspect must be in custody of law enforcement officials and (2) subjected to interrogation (3) without being first provided Miranda warnings. United States v. Brownlee, 454 F.3d 131, 4 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)).

Miranda warnings are not required due to the factor that John wasn’t being asked any questions at the time that he was making self-incriminating statements. John was in custody, the “legal concept of custody exists when a suspect perceives that he is not free to leave an immediate area“ (Reid, 2010). John wasn’t advised of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which “gives individuals the right to refuse to answer any questions or make any statements” (Fifth Amendement Right Against Self-Incrimination, 2009). This was completely legal due to the factor that John wasn’t being interviewed at the time of arrest. It is popular belief that the Miranda warnings as seen on television have to be read directly after arrest; however, the Miranda warnings are required “if a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning” prior to questioning the suspect and use the suspect” (Police Questioning: When Mirnada Warnings Are Required, 2010). The simple equation for Miranda warning is custody + interrogation = the requirement for Miranda warnings” (Petrocelli, 2010). According to Petrocelli (2010), “voluntary statements are not subject to Miranda warnings, so an officer need not stop a suspect from making incriminating voluntary statements.” If the police officers were asking him questions during the time of arrest the whole scenario would have changed and the Miranda warnings would be required due to the factor that