Miranda Rights Research Paper

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.

The Miranda warning is a landmark case, the Supreme Court decided five to four majority in the case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, stating that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-implication connected to a person in the custody of a police officer or denied of his opportunity of activity in any substantial way. However, with the specific objective to protect this benefit, the Court ruled, person must, before any questioning, be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has right to presence of an attorney, retained or appointed (Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Which allow the right individuals to have an attorney present prior to be questioning. Miranda warning is used and enforced by all law enforcement in the United States. It was established because of the incident of March 13, 1963, with Ernesto Miranda. The Phoenix Police Department arrested Miranda on circumstantial evidence which linked him to kidnap and rape of an eighteen year old woman a

The Miranda rights are the rights a law enforcement will have to advise an individual once the police officer arrests that particular person. It is actually the indication that officers of the law provide suspects to ensure that they are aware of their rights before they are interrogated. It was in fact a law created after the investigations of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. The case was comparable because it was a 5-4 conclusion. The court determined that any form of evidence, may it be incriminating as well as evidence of innocence, should be considered to be proof in a case; but could only be considered whenever the police let the suspect understand that they have the right to legal representation before and also throughout questioning and that the suspect may be quiet to prevent self-incrimination before an interrogation. This can be a staple whenever police arrests are done. I am going to specify the reason why I think that the Miranda Rights are not needed any longer.

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

Arizona was of course the Miranda Rights that a peace officer is supposed to tell you when they say they arrested the following “1)You have the right to remain silent. 2)Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 3)You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.” It is basically is what it states that the officer tells you your rights so you can’t say you didn't know your rights and do the whole thing Miranda did.Morrow, Stephanie. "Know Your Rights: What Are Miranda Rights?"Legalzoom.com. N.p., May 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. If I was on the Supreme Court and Miranda came, saying he did not know his rights, so his confession of him rapping and kidnapping a woman is not valid ,i would get down from my chair going up to his face and say you must be one dumb person if you think ima let you get away with this sick and vile crime you have committed.However, if i were to do it the legal way I would do everything in my power to help him get a fair trial where he knows his rights perfectly clear and do my best to get him life in prison without the chance of parole. I would do that because he knew what he was doing was breaking the law and just plain wrong, so i don’t see why he would get off a crime like that because he didn't know his

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

In the United States, everyone counts on that justice and liberty is something that we can all have regardless if you are a criminal or not. However, nobody pays attention when they are in school while they are learning about their rights. Then how is someone going to know what they have the right to do while being in an arrested? Miranda v. Arizona was an important case in the U.S. history for a reason. Miranda v. Arizona does guarantee justice and maintains the liberty of everyone.

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

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

The Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda Warning, were derived from the 5th and 6th amendments in which they guarantee all people who are taken into arrest the right to trial, council, and to be appointed a lawyer. Although not explicitly expressed in the constitution, the Miranda rights provide the necessary precautions for self-incrimination and proper trial by providing those who have been arrested or incarcerated a brief description of the rights the individual is guaranteed to. It also provides the means for lawfully gathering information such as confessions and testimony from criminals for use in a court and trial. Often individuals who are taken into custody are not fully aware of one’s rights, especially the right to maintain silent, and this in turn can lead to information being given that may lead to the accused to be unlawfully tried and placed in jail for long periods of time.

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

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.

After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda, there were several changes made to the detaining and arresting processes for law enforcement in the United States. The laws were then changed to require all law enforcement to read what would go on to be titled a citizen’s “Miranda Warning” which explained, the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer or public defendant, and that anything they say will be used against them. All of these

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.

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.