The Gideon V. Wainwright Case

Miranda versus Arizona is an important case that happened in the United States of America that has changed policing to what it is today. First, I will talk about the events leading to the arrest of a man named Ernesto Miranda. Then, I will talk about his trial, and next, on how this case has changed policing for the better. Lastly, I will talk about my point on this case and how I think it has affected the United States with policing.

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

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:

Miranda v. Arizona was a case where Ernesto Miranda was accused of raping a women. At the time of his arrest he did not know his rights and that he had the right to remain silent and get a lawyer. He confessed orally and in a written form, but he never knew his

Did the state court's failure to appoint a lawyer for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that the states are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent indigent defendants who are unable to afford to pay for their own attorneys. Gideon extended the right to counsel and enforced its requirements upon the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) also stands as precedent to guarantee indigent defendants charged with serious offenses the right to court-appointed attorney at the government’s expense. The ruling in Gideon established the principle “that every man, the rich, the poor, and poor as well as rich, is entitled to the benefit of counsel” (Fortas,

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. Clarence Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so under the 6th amendment he demonstrated his rights by asking the Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him. His request was denied and he was left to represent himself (Lewis, 1964). He did an awful job of defending himself during the trial and was found guilty (PBS, 2006). He then wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court from his prison cell stating that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and

Moreover, there was a shift in the court systems, leaving many individuals without their right to due process. This meant that many of those being charged were not given a lawyer or counsel from the state, they could be pushed into taking a plea bargain under the impression that there is no other way out, and bail

There are a lot of very important cases in U.S. history which have impacted what America’s judicial system looks like today, Miranda Vs. Arizona is the prime example of that. This case had controversial issues and has changed what process happens when you get arrested and that is a big deal. If this case hadn’t had happened police behavior would be a very different process than it is today. Miranda Vs. Arizona was a case that changed the United States of America forever.

Public defenders have a tough job defending their indigent clients. In an ideal scenario, they are to defend their clients in a zealous manner. Unfortunately for the clients, most cases end via plea bargains . For cases that do make it to court, some clients find their attorney lacking in many respects . This is because the Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright only guarantees the right to an attorney. Unfortunately, that right does not extend to a quality lawyer or defense . I intern at the Orange County Public Defender’s office, where the clients are poor and homeless. As such, they cannot hire their own lawyers and must rely on free legal representation from the office’s attorneys. But just like other Public Defenders across the U.S.,

The Miranda v. Arizona case shows the people that the Criminal Justice System is not always correct and now how to handle things. Also shows how easy it is for the ones protecting society can make such big mess, which could have, not came upon if just would have done one thing. The Criminal Justice System needs to be more careful on what they do. With the Miranda Right’s set in place should help the police and the

In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a young girl, T.L.O., had her purse searched, suspected of having cigarettes in her purse. The school officials of Piscataway High School uncovered cigarettes, miniature quantity of marijuana, and a list for students who owe her money. T.L.O. was now imposed charge of possession of marijuana. T.L.O. was not content and moved to terminate evidence discovered in the search, but was however contradicted her motion. She was sentenced to probation for one year, after confirmed guilty from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division proclaimed the contradiction of the process to terminate evidence. Holding that the exclusionary rule of the fourth amendment involves the search and seizures regulated by the school officials in public schools, the New Jersey Supreme Court interchanged.

The United States Constitution is the framework of our legal system. It provides its citizens undeniable rights, and federal and state substantive and procedural laws must be obeyed while not conflicting with the citizens’ rights in the Constitution. Among these rights are the 5th and 6th amendments. The 5th amendment states that a person has the right to a grand jury and cannot be tried twice for the same crime. The 5th amendment further states that person cannot be the witness of his/her own crime (U.S. Const. Amend. V). The 6th amendment is related to the rights of criminal defendants. The 6th amendment guarantees criminal defendants with the right to a public trial, the right to a lawyer, and the right to know the charges and evidence against them (U.S. Const. Amend. VI). The case, Miranda v. Arizona (1996), changed the course of history by determining appropriate police conduct. This appropriate police conduct has been set as the norm, which is still being used today. This process is referred to as reading the arrested their Miranda rights. This research paper examines the facts and significance of the Miranda v. Arizona case and how it affected the Supreme Court, law enforcement, and judicial system.

Arizona, 1996, that involved the theft of eight dollars and a twenty year prison sentence, extending this right to U.S citizens in a fundamental manner. This Supreme Court case brought change to the term “pleading the fifth” and getting a fair trial, helping to shape modern judicial law as we know it. The controversy of the case that made it such an evolutionary landmark, was the fact that the main suspect, Ernesto Miranda confessed that he had raped and kidnapped a woman and committed an armed robbery after intense interrogation after being arrested, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. However, Miranda was neither informed of his rights nor told he could ask for an attorney to be present during questioning nor that he could remain silent. The police questioned him for two hours which resulted in a signed, written confession. After the 20-30 years of imprisonment on each count, the Supreme Court of Arizona, on appeal according to United States courts website, the court ruled that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated. The Supreme Court eventually ended up ruling that his confession was not admissible in court. It led them to conclude that law enforcement officials must create safeguards to protect the rights of a questioned individual. Furthermore, according to the Revolutionary War and Beyond website, the ruling Chief Justice Earl Warren said in his