The Fifth Amendment-Prohibiting Self Discrimination

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

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

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 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

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused and arrested on the charges of kidnapping and rape of a woman in Phoenix, Arizona. Miranda was then taken to an interrogation room where he signed a written confession saying he did the crime after two hours of questioning. His confession was then admitted as evidence at his trial, and was convicted and sentenced 20-30 years in prison. The case was taken to the Supreme Court as a consolidation of 3 other cases similar to the Miranda v. Arizona case, Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren and was joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas. The dissenting opinion was written Justice Harlan and was joined by Justices Stewart and White. Harlan said it was “poor constitutional law” which would result in “harmful consequences for the country at large.” White asserted it would have “a corrosive effect on the criminal law as an effective device to prevent crime.” Justice Clark wrote a dissenting part opinion. The court case was argued on February 28 and March 1 and 2, 1966 and was decided on June 13, 1966. The case is one that was considered to be as a result of the legal aid movement of the 1960s. The concept of the movement was to provide those accused of crimes with legal support they require on their behalf.

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

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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda

In this case Miranda was not told his rights, and he served as a witness against himself. Also, as soon as he was arrested he should have been read his rights and should have known that he had the right to not speak until he had an attorney with him. Miranda did not know this at the time he was arrested. Miranda’s team appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, the highest state court in Arizona. The court upheld the lower court's decision, therefore keeping the punishment. About 3 years later, the US Supreme Court read over the Miranda V Arizona case. They had seen the paper that had Miranda's confession written on saying “this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” However, they were certain that Miranda was not told his rights by the

April 17, 2013, the case of Salinas V. Texas was presented to the United States Supreme Court to be argued and decided. The case disputed a person's Fifth Amendment’s privileges to self-testify and remain silent. After murdering two brothers after an apparent party in 1992, Salinas was deemed the main suspect and was taken into custody for further questioning. There was one catch though, Salinas was never read his Fifth Amendment rights before questioning, only before he was tried.

Throughout the interrogation, the police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney (“Miranda v. Arizona Podcast”). Miranda was question for two hours without a lawyer. Miranda eventually gave the police details of the crime that closely matched the victims story. He agreed to write his confession in a written statement which he wrote out under the words, “this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me” (“Miranda Rights”). His confession was used as evidence when he was tried and convicted for the crime by the court.

The first case was Miranda's case v. Arizona. In the case, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his place of residence and taken to the police station where the witness identified him. Then, he was interrogated for two hours without any notification of his rights. At the end of the interrogation, Miranda wrote a confession. In the trial, Miranda's confession was brought to the court and he was found guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona said that Miranda's rights were not violated in retrieving the confession.

Whenever a crime takes place, the police arrive at the scene and must tell the one they arrested the Miranda rights. In world book online: Stanley L. Kutler, Ph.D notes, “Miranda V. Arizona was a case in which the supreme court in the United States limited the power of police to question suspects.” Miranda was a criminal who kidnapped and raped several women. He was not able to understand English very well, for Spanish was his language. When he was arrested, he was interrogated for about two hours. He was not given his rights in Spanish, therefore he did understand what they had told him. This means he was not given his right to an attorney or to remain silent. He then confessed orally and in written form. He then took it to the supreme court.

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.

With the warning also being so common in the media, the actual meaning and representation of the warning is mostly lost to many suspects not fully understanding what its full meaning is. They may not be of sound mind or they may even be too emotional to grasp its meaning that it is their rights to use and exercise. Whatever be the case, the individual’s emotional and mental state plays a huge part in how they comprehend what is going on. In most cases, the reading of the warning is crucial to how the suspect interprets it. If the officer states it angrily, the suspect may be too intimidated to understand that they have been told their rights rather than if the officer were to state it calmly and in a mild tone. Most individuals also come from a background where they do not possess enough familiarity with the law or the Constitution to be able to exercise these rights (Galatzer-Levy & Galatzer-Levy, 2012). Shortly after the Miranda decision came into being, its value questioned as to whether it would be of use to everyday law enforcement. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that in his opinion concerning the Miranda case, "cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime." The court’s ruling that all interrogations involve the “application of state power” has had the effect that some police officers will go to drastic measures to obtain the confession that they so desire (Zalman & Smith, 2007). The suspect may also decide to waive their rights. Since there is not a standard rule in place regarding the waiver, some states have decided that the best way they can handle it would be to have the suspect sign a waiver form

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1966 charged with rape and kidnapping. In the process of being arrested Miranda was not informed of his rights leading into interrogation. In interrogation Miranda supposedly confessed to committing a crime that the police had recorded. As the time came to prosecute Miranda the only evidence they could go off on was his confession. After Miranda was then convicted of rape and kidnapping that sentenced him to 20-30 years in prison. He then petition to Arizona court saying, “Police had unconstitutionally obtained my confession.” (McBride. (2006). Expanding…Rights.) But Arizona court disagreed and kept on with conviction. So then Miranda had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 that lead to voting and the outcome was 5 to 4. Then Warren the Chief Justice had ruled that Miranda’s confession isn’t enough evidence to use in