Oregon v. Elstad Essay

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.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for a violent crime in Phoenix, Arizona and was taken to a police station for questioning. Officers put him into a room, where they questioned him for many hours. They came out with a confession Miranda had signed. The confession form included a paragraph saying the confession had been made voluntarily. The typed paragraph said Miranda had signed the confession “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” Miranda’s confession was used against him in court, and he was convicted.5th Amendment says that a person involved in a criminal case cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. In other words, only statements that are

The court reversed the trial court’s affirmation and remanded the case for a new trail.

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.

The human brain is a remarkably intricate organ. Therefore, simple mutations in its complexity can result in devastating conditions leading to acts of violence. Kinkel, a fifteen-year-old boy, demonstrates his partaking in the unnecessary murders of both his parents and innocent bystanders. Kinkel is said to have shown signs of his intentions through inconspicuous matters. Later holding the guilt of four deaths and twenty-six attempts via semi-automatic weaponry (para. 5). The mental instability of the subject is proven to be in effect, and a suitable cause for these behaviors. The document in question is “The State of Oregon v. Kipland Philip Kinkel”, in which encompasses a trial the young boy capable of murder. Kinkel is convicted of the absolute minimal sentence for the nature of his crimes, followed by his seemly confession. The defense and prosecution contemplate proper arguments given the defendants substantial witnesses to the crimes and articles of law. Justice is debated among the courts and how to satisfy these reprimands. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the higher courts decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.

The issues the court must decide are whether withholding Miranda Warnings to obtain a confession is considered admissible in court. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, Ms. Seibert was questioned before her

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The Trial Court had not allowed the instruction on affirmative defense of abandonment and renunciation. The Appeals court reversed and sent it back to trial, so that the instruction could be

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

This was appealed until it reached the Supreme Court for Muller's reasoning that the law passed by the state of Oregon was unconstitutional, therefore he should not have to pay the fine. Written in his brief, he states:

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

Freedom of assembly defines the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. In the case of “De Jonge v. Oregon,” the Court protected freedom of assembly from state actions and rather referred to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Dirk De Jonge was a member of the Communist Party. De Jonge protested against “police brutality.” Oregon charged De Jonge as wanting to cause civil unrest. However, in the end, the case made it to the Supreme Court who stated the following, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). “The Court said this means that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Another freedom of assembly case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network involved pro-life protestors who surrounded abortion clinics. The Pro-Choice Network complained that pro-life protestors were hassling their clients outside their clinics (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). This case was about the assembly rights of citizens who wanted to protest abortion, which was their First Amendment right (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). The Supreme Court struck down the “floating buffer zone” due to safety concerns, yet upheld that pro-life protesters can still pass out leaflets and make statements from the approved buffer zone (“Schenck

At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only

The final argument Kehoe made at her appeal was the ineptitude of her defense team. For the most part in the state of Iowa instructions to the jury regarding what will happen when a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is returned are not required. This is based on the precedent set forth by cases like State v. Oppelt where the defendant requested instructions be provided to the jury as to their responsibilities in case of a not guilty verdict due to insanity. The court then held with the majority of the United States that a refusal of such a request is not in violation of any rights.