Miranda V. Arizona 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.

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

One of the darkest moments for anyone is being the center of a criminal investigation. Many emotions can fuel statements that may not be in the best interest of the suspect. These statements can turn a suspect into a defendant relatively easy. Without proper, sufficient legal council, a defendant can be a convicted criminal. If the defendant was aware of his rights, the outcome could be inherently different. The United States is one of very few nations that will provide legal counsel for criminal matters. Every so often a person becomes a spectacle in our Judicial System and case law becomes of it. Sometimes, the case law is beneficial for the government such as Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, citing that strip searches of inmates regardless of the crimes they committed without probable cause is justified in the interest of inmate, staff, and jail safety. Other case law such as Miranda v. Arizona it reinforces constitutional rights for United States citizens. Miranda v. Arizona is case law that mandates the government to inform people of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. Many people often argue, so what. They are guilty, why do suspects have any rights anyway. Simply put, we are a Constitutional Democracy with established rules, norms and values. What makes our nation so wonderful is we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Circumstantial evidence leading authorities to assume a person is

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

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

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.

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.

     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

A police officer responded to a call about an assault by a man against a woman. Upon arrival, he asked the man (later identified as Mr. Hiibel) multiple times to identify himself, to which he refused. Mr. Hiibel was then charged with “willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office” (Larry Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada, 2004). After being arrested, charged, and convicted, Mr. Hiibel took his case to the U.S Supreme Court because he felt that the Nevada law that requires citizens disclose their identity to a police officer violated his 4th and 5th Amendment rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected his claim that the law was unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy says that the search was not unreasonable based on the fact that there was reasonable suspicion (4th Amendment to the U.S constitution) and that simply stating his name was not self-incriminating (5th Amendment to the U.S Constitution).

to protect the rights of the accused must be taken by the police; simply “reading their rights” is insufficient. In Blackstock, a defendant with an IQ of 55 and diagnosed mental impairment was accused of aggravated sexual battery of a child. The court concluded that the defendant, based on his IQ, level of education, and mental capacity, cannot knowingly and willingly waive his Miranda rights without a clear demonstration of his understanding of those rights and the consequences of waiving them. If that accused defendant did not fully comprehend the consequences of waiving his rights, then that waiver was invalid and his statements could not be used against him. (State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200

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

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.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his house and taken into custody. After he arrived at the police station he was identified by a witness and then interrogated by two police officers. Two hours had already passed and there was a written and signed confession from Miranda. At the trial, both the oral and written confessions were brought up in front of the jury and he was then found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He was then sentenced with twenty to thirty years in prison for each count. Miranda was never advised of his rights when he was taken into custody or when he was being interrogated by the police.

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

Miranda also protects suspects from fanatical law enforcement officials. Although most law-enforcement officials are nice men and women, some conduct ill-usage of their power. They may try to pressure suspects