Miranda Rights
Specific Purpose Statement: To inform my audience how “Miranda Rights” were established.
Central Idea: Miranda rights must be known for everyone because it is important for us as civilians. For that reason, it is important to know where it comes from. Therefore, I am going to talk about the arrest of Ernesto Miranda, the arguments against Arizona State and what was the final decision about the case.
Introduction
There are several videos on internet talking about Miranda rights and how they can protect us from the police if we get arrested to us. Its famous warning is also repeated in countless police procedures on TV: “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 have an attorney
…show more content…
I. Ernesto Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona in 1941. On March 3, 1963, He kidnapped and raped an 18 year old girl, Jane Doe who was walking home after work when Miranda pulled up and parked his car to abduct her.
A. Ten days later of the incident, Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness.
B. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda was not informed of his right to remain silence.
a. He confessed to commit the crimes (rape and kidnapping), which the police recorded.
b. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade, had a history of mental instability. He had no counsel present.
C. At trial, the prosecution's case consisted only of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Second, arguments against Arizona State:
II. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
A. His public defender claimed that the police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession.
a. His confession was against the Fifth Amendment which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against
After refusing to sign the paper, and being interrogated, he finally confessed. Miranda's lawyers claimed that Miranda was not informed on any of his rights. Rights he should have been aware of included his right to keep quiet and his right to an attorney. He was charged with rape and kidnapping, but wanted to go to a higher court. This is when he went to the Supreme Court. An investigation would take place to see if the arresting officer followed the right rules. The one who led court was Chief Justice Warren. In court, there was a 5-4 decision. Ernesto would no longer be convicted of his crime because his rights were not made aware to him. The judge stated that a person's rights must be said to them when they are arrested. Miranda should have been told of his fifth and sixth amendment rights. His confession was no longer valid, and he would get a new trial. Different evidence though, did confirm that he was the one responsible for the crime. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison. Even though he'd need to spend time in jail, his case changed both the world, and the procedures of police
The Miranda vs. Arizona all started when Ernesto Miranda was accused for kidnapping and raping a woman. The Miranda right came to be when law enforcement failed to read Ernesto his right. This case was so big that the whole state of Arizona was involved. I believe that Miranda vs. Arizona does ensure justice and preserve liberty.
Miranda vs. the State of Arizona started oral arguments in 1966 with the conviction of rape and kidnapping. The issue that the court was addressing is the way the defendant's confession was given without a lawyer present which denies the defendant of his right to counsel. According to the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has every right to have an attorney present at the time of his/her arrest and throughout the trial process. If a defendant is unable to afford an attorney, the Government will provide them with legal representation ("The Right to Counsel,” 2016). They interrogated the respondent from 11:30 am until 1:30 am in an attempt to gain an oral confession without legal representation ("Miranda V. Arizona, Oral Arguments", 1966). During questioning, they passed Earnest a written statement containing his oral confession that he indeed agreed to the crimes that he was accused. According to "Miranda V. Arizona, Oral Arguments" (1966), Miranda did not ask for a lawyer at any time but was appointed an attorney to defend him in both cases by the Trial
Everyone has heard the lines, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” It has been played on television and in movies so often that it would be rare for an individual not to have heat it. However, how many individuals know how the Miranda rights came to be?
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
“Nonetheless, detectives began questioning Miranda, and he signed a confession approximately two hours later.”(Riley 11). Miranda was not completely clear that he had the right to remain silent and also the right to an attorney even if he couldn’t pay for one.
Arizona was being appealed because even though Miranda out of his own free will confessed that yes he did rape and kidnapped Patty McGee. How ever rape victims in the state of Arizona have to resist to the utmost for it to be considered rape and McGee had not been able to say that she had done so ,and because of that Alvin Moore immediately appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court. Gribben, Mark. "MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED AMERICA .Alvin Moore asked was the statement that Miranda made voluntarily or forced on by the police who was interrogating him and was he asked in his brief ,a mexican man of little education wasn't told and so did not afforded all the safeguards to his rights as an American citizen provided by the Constitution of the United States. However by the time the Arizona high court got to consider Mirandas appeal in 1965, the U.S Supreme Court under Liberal Earl Warren had put in favor of the side of defendant's(Miranda) rights. The reason he had done so is because they had taken a step towards Moores trial claim that the suspect in case (Miranda),is entitled to a lawyer during police questioning and he was not given one when they were questioning him.Gribben, Mark. "MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED
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 Rights should no longer be needed. A single factor behind the introduction of the Miranda rights are given that before Miranda vs. Arizona the law enforcement will continuously exercise physical violence to get confessions as well as information from possible criminals. The Miranda Rights reduce the continuous torment to obtain admissions of guilt. In the present day, however modern
The case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. The Court had already ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess. They had also held that persons accused of serious crimes have a fundamental right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. (Supreme Court)
In March of 1963, the Phoenix Police Department brought in an accused to their departments to investigate him. Upon arriving to the police department two detectives interrogated him about the rape of a mildly, handicap young woman and a kidnap. After two hours of interrogating the suspect, Ernesto Miranda, confessed to the crime just after the detectives told him the victim had identified him in a lineup. Ernesto Miranda was found guilty of both crimes and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison. In 1966, three years later, Miranda’s sentence was overturned by the Supreme Court due to the fact that Miranda was not notified about his fifth or sixth amendment. His fifth amendment gave him the right to avoid self-incrimination by
We can see a significant of this case Miranda v. Arizona through a decision in Mapp v. Ohio. This was another controversial case that addressed the issue of the rights of criminals being given their advices may hamper their inviestagtions and result in more criminals being set free. By 1968, congress passed the laws that provided the courts abilities to examine confessions on a case by case basis. Then the courts would decide whetaer they would be allwed or disallowed. As a result of the Miranda v. Arizona case we can see the birth of what we now know today as the “Miranda
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
The Miranda rights are not explicitly stated in the constitution, however the constitution does guarantee against self-incrimination by the 5th amendment and the right to council by the 6th amendment. Law enforcement officials are run by the department of justice, they are responsible for reading these rights to all people they arrest and in my opinion I feel that the officials do a good job of ensuring that all people they detain are read their Miranda rights.
The Miranda v Arizona case was combined with three other similar cases. When the Supreme Court handed down the decision 5-4 in Miranda's favor, the resulting rights afforded to those being questioned or detained by police became popularly known as Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights must include the following as described by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren: