Patrice Seibert Case Study

In 1787 the United States’ constitution was written, two years later the Bill of Rights was added. The Bill of Rights consists of ten amendments which were designed based on the American ideals to ensure that the federal government is not too powerful, and that it would protect the rights of the people or of the state. One of the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights is the sixth amendment, which gives the people the right to enjoy a speedy trial when accused, and it allows the accused person to know the cause of the accusation and who his accuser is. It clearly represents some of the American ideals such as: democracy, opportunity, and equality.

The Miranda v. Arizona case was issued by the United States Supreme court in 1966. The Supreme court stated criminal suspects must be told their rights to consult with an attorney and their rights against self incrimination questions by police officer. The law is intended to protect an individuals 5th amendment, which wasnt the case in the Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape and Kidnapping in March 1963 that accumulated to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda never was informed of his rights that lead to what is called the Miranda Rights. This law provides people with the 5th amendment and 6th amendment so they wont be violated anymore.

The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment.

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:

Over the course of time the Supreme Court has had multiple cases reviewed, and using the past history of famous court cases to evolve the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court uses selective incorporation (this a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot pass laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are protected in the Bill of Rights.)One example of the Supreme Court using selective incorporation is Impartial Jury: Voir Dire-defendant and prosecutor look over all juries to get rid of any bias that might be against the person. This also gives the criminally convicted different varieties of people on the jury to have an un-bias judgement. The reason this is a selective incorporation because the Supreme Court

In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda 's case. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear three similar cases. The Court combined all the cases into one case. Since Miranda was listed first among the four cases considered by the Court, the decision came to be known by that name. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in 1966. (Supreme

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

The court argued that the case was not about whether Miranda was guilty of the charges or not (he obviously confessed). Rather they argued that the case was about the way in which the interrogation was derived. The court’s ruling was meant to deal with the mistreatment of suspects by policemen during interrogation. Policemen are notorious for mistreating suspects in questioning (alovardohistory). Prior

The Sixth Amendment is, assuring the accused right to a speedy and public trial, right to be represented by an attorney, and right to be faced by accusing witness. The Sixth Amendment was proposed in, 1791. Amendment Six is about having an attorney present at court to make a fair trial. If you can’t afford one the court will appoint one to you. For example, Clarence Gideon vs Louie Wainwright. In this particular case, Gideon could not afford an attorney , yet the judge did not appoint one to him so he went to prison. After he was sent to prison he sent a letter to the Supreme Court, then he got a retrial and won. The Sixth Amendment was proposed because people who didn’t have an attorney could not have a fair trial against a person who had

The sixth amendment is the right to speedy trial and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district where crime committed, Informed of the nature and case of the accusation against them, To be confronted by the witness Against them, To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor have the assistance of counsel for their defense. The sixth amendment was created and passed in 1789 when the bill of rights were accepted and passed, and then in 1891 congress went back and ratified the amendment. Congress passed this amendment because they felt that the British were ruling and not treating the criminals not fairly when it came to sentencing. The founding fathers also wanted to protect the rights of the accused; it also provides fair protections from prosecutions and investigations. An example of this is during

The founding fathers decided it would be beneficial to create the sixth amendment in 1789 in attempt to codify fairness. When thinking about what the word fair means, one should think of a “marked by impartiality and honest: free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism” (Fair). Overall, the sixth amendment was created to “guarantee the right to criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you” (Sixth Amendment). This means every individual who is being charged of a crime, is required to have a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, notice of accusation, confrontation, and counsel. Since all

This case’s title is Miranda vs. Arizona and it took place in Phoenix, Arizona and Started in the Arizona State Court. This case was argued on February 28, 1966, and March 1st and 2nd of 1966. The case was decided on June 13, 1966. It all started when Ernesto Miranda

The sixth amendment build off of the one before it where it provides more rights to the citizens being prosecuted. It defines the trails and provides a chose for the defendant between a speedy and public trial Although they still have the right to remain silent. In Order to insure that the trial is fair, the defendant can have an attorney and a jury of peairs from the district the crime was committed in. I find the Fifth slightly above the sixth because it 's seemingly the rules of the game

The Miranda v. Arizona was about a Mexican immigrant which he was called Ernesto Miranda. He was arrested in his home and brought to the police station where he identified by the witness. While he was being interrogated by the police the police failed to explain the 5th Amendment and the 6th Amendment to him which is protection against self- incrimation and his right to have an attorney. He was convicted and sentenced 20 to 30 years in jail. The Supreme Court decided by 1966 a 5-4 majority. This case created the Miranda Rights which helps enforce our civil rights as people.

On March 13 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested on charges of rape and kidnapping of an 18 year old girl. He was interrogated but was never aware that the details of his interrogation would later be used against him in his court trial. Miranda stated that he was never spoken to concerning his right to silence and council as well as the confession being used against him in his trial. He would end up being sentenced to prison, however in June 1965, his attorneys would send the case to the Supreme Court arguing that Miranda had been violated of his right as stated in the 5th and 6th amendments. The case would lead to chief justice Earl Warren to write the first draft of the Miranda rights.