Summary: The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

One of the darkest moments for anyone is being the center of a criminal investigation. Many emotions can fuel statements that may not be in the best interest of the suspect. These statements can turn a suspect into a defendant relatively easy. Without proper, sufficient legal council, a defendant can be a convicted criminal. If the defendant was aware of his rights, the outcome could be inherently different. The United States is one of very few nations that will provide legal counsel for criminal matters. Every so often a person becomes a spectacle in our Judicial System and case law becomes of it. Sometimes, the case law is beneficial for the government such as Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, citing that strip searches of inmates regardless of the crimes they committed without probable cause is justified in the interest of inmate, staff, and jail safety. Other case law such as Miranda v. Arizona it reinforces constitutional rights for United States citizens. Miranda v. Arizona is case law that mandates the government to inform people of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. Many people often argue, so what. They are guilty, why do suspects have any rights anyway. Simply put, we are a Constitutional Democracy with established rules, norms and values. What makes our nation so wonderful is we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Circumstantial evidence leading authorities to assume a person is

In the United States, everyone counts on that justice and liberty is something that we can all have regardless if you are a criminal or not. However, nobody pays attention when they are in school while they are learning about their rights. Then how is someone going to know what they have the right to do while being in an arrested? Miranda v. Arizona was an important case in the U.S. history for a reason. Miranda v. Arizona does guarantee justice and maintains the liberty of everyone.

The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 affected the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of law enforcement. Miranda v. Arizona is known as the “right to remain silent” case. “I must tell you first you have the right to remain silent. If you choose not to remain silent, anything you say or write can and will be used as evidence against you in court. You have the right to consult a lawyer before any questioning, and you have the right to have the lawyer present with you during any questioning. You not only have the right to consult with a lawyer before any questioning, but if you lack the financial ability to retain a lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, and to be present with you

. Another case that impacted the criminal justice system was the Miranda vs. Arizona, Thanks to countless movies and television shows these words evoke one of the most well known Supreme Courts decisions. This decision famously demands the police to give specific warnings to a suspects as a condition to custodial interrogation (Holland 1). It started when a 18 year old girl was forcibly grab by a man as she was walking towards the bus stop. The attacker dragged her into his car, tied her hands and force her to lie down in the back seat.

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.

At issue in this case is whether Mr. Love was fully aware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court must decide if he had the mental facilities to make an intelligent and informed decision in making a statement without an attorney present. If he did not “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily” waive his Constitutional rights it could invalidate his confession. (State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 287 (Tenn. 2012))

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.”

The facts of the Miranda V. Arizona case, reveal that the suspect/petitioner Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his residence for the alleged abduction and rape of an 18yr old Phoenix woman who ‘s authorities believed was speculative. However, when questioned, the victim provided offices with a description and possible plate number of a vehicle that abducted her. With that, officials tracked the plate and vehicle of a vehicle which resembled that of the alleged suspect. Although the information obtained from the victim was inconclusive, Ernesto Miranda was placed in a lineup to be identified by the victim; however, as the victim was unable to identify Miranda as the attacker, officers maintained their custody of Miranda based on the similarity of the vehicle and his prior

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 scatter plot shows the Justices with their ideology scores. Those closest to the bottom are more conservative, middle is moderate and the top is liberal. To put it into numbers, 0 is the most conservative and 1 is the most liberal. If the theory that Justices only vote by their ideological ideals then one can safely assume that Scalia and Rehnquist will consistently vote conservatively while Brennan and Marshall will consistently vote liberally.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his house and taken into custody. After he arrived at the police station he was identified by a witness and then interrogated by two police officers. Two hours had already passed and there was a written and signed confession from Miranda. At the trial, both the oral and written confessions were brought up in front of the jury and he was then found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He was then sentenced with twenty to thirty years in prison for each count. Miranda was never advised of his rights when he was taken into custody or when he was being interrogated by the police.

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?

In a Miranda analysis, the evidence that is not admissible in court is the defendant (Tom) testimony in which he proclaimed “I killed her and threw the baseball bat over the fence”. His testimony would not be considered as evidence because he was not Mirandized. According to Miranda v. Arizona, it states that a defendant rights must be read by the law enforcement at a slow pace to ensure that the defendant understands what is being read to him or her. Secondly, the bat can possibly be used as evidence providing that it was secure during the crime scene and pictures were taken. With the DNA of Tom, it may be used in the court at the prosecution

I disagree with the court's decision about the Miranda vs Arizona case. I disagree because if a foreign person is arrested in the US they might not know what there rights are whiles in the US. It is important to read off the rights of a criminal because, they are still an american with rights and they deserve to know those rights, especially considering there not the traditional american rights.