Essay on The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona

First evolving from the fathering of the earliest form of the English law enforcement practices, the fifth amendment brought a verity of protection to every citizen of the united states. An important exception was added in the mid to late 80’s with the Miranda court case, when the U.S. Supreme Court found it that if public safety is at immediate risk, a suspect's statements are admissible in court, even if his or her Miranda rights have not been explained. (Erastus-Obilo, Bethel. Everything You Need to Know About Miranda Rights and Warning. Newmarket, Ont., BrainMass, 2012.) Before one can discuss the fifth amendment in further depth one must

“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.

In 1966 , Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping , and robbery. The problem was that Miranda was not informed of his rights before the police interrogation and while the two hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to committing the crimes which police recorded without Mirandas Knowledge. McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." PBS. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.. Miranda who did not even finish the 9th grade and also is known to have a history of being mentally unstable, who did not have any counsel by his side during the interrogation. In court at his trial the prosecution’s case was focused mainly of his confession and thats about it, no matter what in

The second relevant point to make in support of the claim that accused people should be read their Miranda Rights is that these rights help avoid self-incrimination. For example, if these rights are not given, any statements made by the accused during interrogation may be turned against him or her while on trial. Additionally, if these rights are not given, the suspect may be pressured into a confession. In short, to maintain a fair and balanced legal system, people accused of a crime should be advised of their

In the case Miranda vs. Arizona. This case goes against the 5th and 6th amendments. Miranda says that the police had violated his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Miranda addressed the Escobedo rule which states evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. Also addressed was the Gideon rule which states all felony defendants have the right to attorney. But the police say that Miranda completely voluntarily signed the confession.

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 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

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

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

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

The Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda Warning, were derived from the 5th and 6th amendments in which they guarantee all people who are taken into arrest the right to trial, council, and to be appointed a lawyer. Although not explicitly expressed in the constitution, the Miranda rights provide the necessary precautions for self-incrimination and proper trial by providing those who have been arrested or incarcerated a brief description of the rights the individual is guaranteed to. It also provides the means for lawfully gathering information such as confessions and testimony from criminals for use in a court and trial. Often individuals who are taken into custody are not fully aware of one’s rights, especially the right to maintain silent, and this in turn can lead to information being given that may lead to the accused to be unlawfully tried and placed in jail for long periods of time.

The last fifty years of American law have changed drastically due to numerous “landmark” court cases. For those who have studied these landmark cases, Miranda v. Arizona is one of the most crucial of these cases. Until the Miranda v. Arizona trial of 1966, when a person was arrested, they were not given a fair awareness of their rights as a citizen, which often times resulted in the self incrimination or unknowingly admitting to guilt (McBride). The Miranda decision provided a constitutional and reasonable way of allowing the suspect to fully embrace their fifth and sixth amendment rights without any form of admission of guilt.

This case brief was written in regards to Miranda v. Arizona, in which The Supreme Court of the United States considered the facts of four separate cases, all of which involved incriminating evidence obtained during official police interrogations. In all four cases Government officials did not advise the individuals, who were under custodial detention, of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. Individuals who are being questioned under a custodial police interrogation are protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment .The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases

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.

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.