Mirandan V Confessions

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 Rights are meant to be read to those being detained by police prior to an interrogation about a crime, or when a suspect is taken into custody. A police officer must be careful in the order in which they question the suspect and read the suspect his or her rights. If care is not given to this, the case could turn out in similar fashion to the decision of Fellers v U.S. Two police officers went to the home of John J. Fellers to arrest Fellers because of an indictment for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The officers relayed to Fellers that they wanted to discuss his involvement in the conspiracy and Fellers subsequently admitted he had used methamphetamine and had also associated with some of the others named in the indictment. Fellers was not advised of his Miranda Rights at this time. The officers then proceeded to take Fellers to jail where he received his

It is desirable for a suspect to answer whether or not they understand these rights with a definite "No" or "Yes" answer. If a suspect is not read these rights or states that he does not know or understand them as they are explained to him, then any evidence, confessions, or information about the alleged crime will be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and may be inadmissible if the case goes to trial.

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.

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? These are all questions evolving from the recent Miranda V Arizona court case. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home on March 13th, 1963 and brought to a police station. They had reason to believe he had connection to a kidnapping and rape, along with theft and armed robbery. The victim of the kidnapping could not recognize Miranda as her attacker, so the police escorted Miranda to an interrogation room. Miranda was interrogated for two hours, and during these two hours the police acquired a written confession to the crime from Miranda. Of course, Miranda went to trial for his actions, but during the trial, Miranda’s attorney argued in court that since the police admitted to not explaining Miranda’s rights to him, this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights. Even with all of this Miranda’s written confession was still used as evidence against him in court.

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 case Miranda v. Arizona that took place in 1963 changed the way police officer question/interrogate their suspect. Back in those days, police officers used to get away with interrogating suspects without informing them of their constitutional rights until the Miranda case came about. Concerning the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that by detaining suspects before questioning they must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (“Miranda v. Arizona,” 2006). In the year 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police officers that arrested him begin to question him without informing him of his constitutional rights to an attorney

According to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), unless the defendant waives his right to an attorney knowingly and intelligently, all questions are to stop until there is an attorney present. Any confession that is made must be proven to be voluntary.

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.”

“(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)

Individuals should be notified of their rights when taken into custody or otherwise dispossessed, of their freedom. Under the Constitution a person of interest must be notified of their rights, under the Fifth Amendment. These warnings advising of one’s rights must be given by the arresting officer to every individual they are taking into custody. These are called Miranda warnings or the “Miranda Rights.”

Because of the Miranda v Arizona case every officer before starting an interrogation has to repeat the person’s rights and wait until they receive either a verbal or written confirmation from the defendant saying they understand that they have the right to remain silent. Even if the officers tell the defendant their rights they have to be done properly or else whatever evidence they get from their interrogation cannot be used in court.

Between February and March of 1966 the Supreme Court case, Miranda vs. Arizona took place (Worrall, 2015). In this case, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona because he was accused of raping a woman. Miranda was interrogated by officers for two hours before confessing both written and orally. He was charged with kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. While this case is the main thing upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling, there were three other cases backing their decision – Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Based on these three cases, the Supreme Court upheld that before any questioning a suspect must be aware that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation (Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v Arizona). This ruling has been implied in all criminal cases since and anytime these rights are not read to a suspect they are acquitted. Miranda vs. Arizona has been the face of a very big change in the way the criminal justice system is run and will continue to be for many years to come.

Often times this has been a roadblock for law enforcement in regards to finding out details on the suspect, the case, and any attempt at hearing an admission of guilt (Kinports). This also does not fully protect a suspect of unlawful interrogation and manipulation from law enforcement officers, as in many cases there have been interrogations where a suspect will let out information that could potentially harm themselves. During the court case of Missouri v. Seibert, a confession was made, then Miranda rights were read, and then a second confession was made. It was argued by the law enforcement officer in court that Seibert had made a “conscious decision” to waive their Miranda rights. The court case went on to be overturned after Seibert had been charged with first-degree murder

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.”