The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

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.

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

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

Miranda Warnings reaffirmed the rights afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: all U.S. citizens have the right to remain silent so as not to incriminate themselves, as well as the right to due process in a court of law before a jury of their peers.

These amendments make it known that all people have the right to choose whether or not to speak when being questioned, consult with an attorney, be tried by and unbiased jury and be granted a public attorney if necessary (Document E). In the case of Ernesto Miranda, he did not know he had these rights. Therefore, the court could not see his confession as admissible. He was unaware that he could keep quiet if he wanted to and instead his inquisitors pushed him to confess. He did not know he had the right to a lawyer and therefore was on his own deciding how to go about the threat to his future. It has always been tradition that prosecutors could not take confessions into court if investigators used coercion or torture of any kind to gain the confession. This has been in place since the 1600s, as shown by the Laws of Connecticut Colony at the time, which stated “no man shall be forced … to confess any crime against himself” (Document B). This tradition has been present throughout centuries and has only been being more refined and updated as time goes on. The Miranda rulings allowed for yet another opportunity to revamp these rights not only by making sure that people have their rights, but also by making sure that they know explicitly that they have the

The case of Miranda v Arizona concerned the issue of whether police interrogatory practices on persons without notifying such persons on their protection against self-incrimination and their right to counsel amounted to the violation of the 5th Amendment. In an unusual decision of 5-4, the court ruled that incriminating evidence stated by the accused cannot be admissible in a court

In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court ruled on four separate cases that involved custodial interrogations. In each circumstance the defendant was interrogated by law enforcement investigators. In all of these cases, the interrogation took place in a secluded room that was totally closed off from the outside world. During all of these interrogations the suspects were never provided any form of notification about their right to counsel or their right to remain silent. As a result of these interrogations, three verbal admissions and one signed written admission were secured and admitted at their individual trials. In all of these cases the Supreme Court affirmed one case and reversed the three other case rulings. As a result, the Supreme Court rule that being told that you have the right to remain silent before an interrogation is an absolute right. They also ruled having legal counsel present before interrogation is an absolute right. This watershed Supreme Court decision changed the practice of law enforcement interrogation in very specific and positive ways.

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.

The Supreme Court Case Miranda V. Arizona is very famous. This case took place in the state of Arizona in 1966. A man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested. He was accused of raping a girl. The lady described him and the car he drove. Later she even saw the car she believed it was and reported the license plate. The number was registered to Ernesto's girlfriend. Before this arrest for rape, Miranda had previous run ins with the law. He had once served a year for for a different rape. There was a line up, in which the victim couldn't positively identify Miranda as the attacker. He was still interrogated anyway and told he was picked out. After being arrested the only thing that happened was that he was given paper, and would need to write down a confession.

Miranda vs. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of the cases, the defendant was questioned without being given warning of his Fifth Amendment rights. In each of the cases, the questioning resulted in oral admissions, and three of the cases resulted in signed statements that were later admitted at trial. At trial, each defendant was found guilty.

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

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must inform detained criminal suspects of their constitutional rights prior to police interrogation. This decision was the result of the Miranda v. Arizona case. The case began in 1963 when a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with robbery, rape, and kidnapping. Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to his interrogation. In addition, during his questioning Miranda had no counsel present despite the fact that he had a history of mental instability. Within the two hours he was questioned, Miranda allegedly confessed to the charges. His confession then went on to serve as the only evidence presented at the trial. Miranda was

“(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)

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

In criminal trials, a defendant’s confession often delivers evidence that is influential when it is the primary source of the prosecutor’s evidence. When a suspect is brought into police custody to obtain a confession or a statement, police officers are required to read the Miranda warning if they believe the confession will be used to convict the suspect. The constitutional basis for the Miranda warning and the conditions for a voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights were announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona.