Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed Miranda’s appeal. It ruled that in the police interrogation of Miranda, the police did not follow the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment says that a criminal suspect has the right not to incriminate himself, or “to be a witness against himself”. The Sixth Amendment says that a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney. Before Miranda’s interrogation, the police did not inform him of these rights. Miranda had no attorney during the interrogation. So Miranda’s conviction was reversed by the

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

“(a) Before he is interrogated, a person suspected of a criminal offense must be warned of his constitutional rights to silence and counsel; (b) counsel, including appointed counsel if necessary, must be made available during interrogation; and (c) the suspect may waive both counsel and his right to remain silent by an explicit statement to that effect after warning.” (Elsen, S. H., & Rosett, A.1967, p.646)

Arizona was Miranda v. Arizona. The case of Miranda v. Arizona involved Ernesto Miranda who through circumstantial evidence was identified, located, taken into custody, and transported to a police station. While at the police station Miranda was interrogated for over two hours without being advised of his rights against self-incrimination, and his right to council. Mr. Miranda was interrogated, and positively identified by the complainant through voice identification. After the interrogation and voice match, Mr. Miranda was asked if he could identify the victim, and Mr. Miranda pointed at the victim and advised that is her. During the interrogation of Mr. Miranda, he admitted to committing the crimes of which he was accused, and signed a written confession. The case against Mr. Miranda was held in 1963 and during the trial the confession was admitted to the court as evidence. Mr. Miranda’s attorney, Alvin Moore, objected to admitting the confession as evidence, however the court overruled and convinced Mr. Miranda of the crimes he was accused, based mostly on the confession. Mr. Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment for the crimes. Mr. Miranda filed for a certiorari, which is a request for a higher court to review a lower court’s decision. In 1965, The Supreme Court agreed to hear Mr. Miranda’s case, along with three other similar cases, where defendants had not been properly advised of their rights against

Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 31, 1963 and charged with kidnapping and rape. The arresting officer(s) transported Miranda to the police station where they conducted an interrogation, and during this time Miranda’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Miranda was interrogated for two hours after which he wrote a confession to the crimes he was being accused of. Once Miranda went to trial and the confession were presented in court, the defense attorney advised the judge that the confession should not be used as evidence in the case due to the fact that the police officers admitted that they did not advise Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during his interrogation.

In the landmark court case, Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is taken into custody of the police, or has been deprived of their freedom of action in any significant way, they must be advised of their constitutional rights. Reason being is because the court realized that in custodial interrogations, the compulsion for a person to potentially incriminate their self is apparent. Therefore, without proper safeguards, the process of custodial interrogation would compel an individual to speak where they would otherwise not do so freely. In the years following Miranda, there has been considerable controversy regarding the extent of Miranda’s prophylactic shield, and under what circumstances the safeguards of Miranda will apply to juveniles.

In 1963 a resident of Arizona was arrested for robbery, kidnapping and raping a young women. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and later interrogated by the police. At the time of his arraignment he was given a legal document and was asked to write a formal confession, Miranda declined. He was interrogated for

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

     You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author

On April 10, 1985, two police questioned respondent Robert Allen Williams about a double homicide. The officers questioned and searched Williams but did not read him his Miranda rights. Williams spontaneous uttered information about the crime which incriminated himself. Forty minutes later the officers advised Williams of his right regarding Miranda v. Arizona. Williams waived his right to Miranda and continued

Do you ever wonder about your Miranda Rights if you are ever questioned by an officer? Do you wonder if you will self-incrimination yourselves if you answer an officers questions in the wrong way? These are valid questions, and within this paper this learner hopes to answers them by describing custody and interrogation in the background of the Fifth Amendment, explain a circumstance where Miranda might be compulsory or a circumstance where the Miranda caveats would not be relevant.

The Miranda decision originates from a case heard back in 1966. In that case Miranda, a Mexican immigrant, was facing the state of Arizona. The case led to the Miranda warning which requires the officer to inform a suspect of his rights, i.e. the right to remain silent and the right to speak to an attorney. This made an impact in the police force.

The Miranda rights are the rights a police offer is required to say to someone when the officer arrests that person. It is the warning that officers of the law give suspects so they know about their rights before they are interrogated. It was a law made after the conclusions of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. The case was very close as it was a 5-4 decision. The court ruled that any type of evidence, whether it is incriminating or proof of innocence, can be used as evidence in a case; however it can only be used if the police let the suspect know that they have the right to an attorney before and during questioning and also that the suspect can be silent to avoid self-incrimination before an interrogation. It is now a staple when police arrests are made. In this paper, I will explain why I believe that the Miranda Rights are not necessary anymore.