The Miranda Decision Case

“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 an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because

First, Miranda v. Arizona all started on March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old Phoenix woman told police that she had been kidnapped, taken to a part of desert land in Arizona, and was raped. She was given a polygraph test, but the results were inadequate. While tracking the license plate number, they came upon a vehicle, similar to that of the women’s attacker, linking them to a man named Ernesto Miranda, who was booked for being a peeping tom. When they put a police line-up for the women to pick out Ernesto, she couldn’t identify, but he was still questioned by police. Police began to interrogate Mr. Miranda and never read him his rights, before interrogation. The interrogation lasted two- hours, in which Miranda supposedly admitted to committing the crimes, and the police had an audio recording of the entire interview. Ernesto had never finished ninth grade and had a history of mental uncertainty.

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

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 case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. The Court had already ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess. They had also held that persons accused of serious crimes have a fundamental right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. (Supreme Court)

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

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 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

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

Miranda v. arizona is a watershed moment in law enforcement because it is a right to silence warning given by police in the united states, to criminal suspect in police custody before they are statement against them in criminal proceeding. My other evidence is that it is important to say the miranda right to a criminals because if you don't say the rights to them while he or she is getting arrested than there will be no charges for the man or women and likely get released from jail and he or she can go free like nothing happen so that is why it is important for an officer to say the miranda rights. My other piece of evidence is that in an article i read said that in 1966 the supreme court decide the historic case of miranda v. arizona

Miranda vs. Arizona is one of the most crucial U.S. Supreme Court cases ever held in the United States. The case causes the Supreme Court to redefine law enforcement procedures before interrogations. The decision that was reached by the Supreme Court addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. All of these cases are similar in the fact that there was a custodial interrogation where the suspect was not properly informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and have a presence of an attorney. Additionally, in all of the cases besides Stewart v. California, the conviction was affirmed without any belief that there was a violation of constitutional rights.

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed Miranda’s appeal. It ruled that in the police interrogation of Miranda, the police did not follow the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment says that a criminal suspect has the right not to incriminate himself, or “to be a witness against himself”. The Sixth Amendment says that a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney. Before Miranda’s interrogation, the police did not inform him of these rights. Miranda had no attorney during the interrogation. So Miranda’s conviction was reversed by the

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 majority opinion in this case was for Miranda, the majority opinion was wrote by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Majority said that Miranda’s confession could not be used in court because the police had not informed Miranda of his rights to a attorney, and against self-incrimination, which are rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the fifth, and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. The fifth amendment says that suspects of crimes have to be informed of their rights during an arrest including the right to remain silent. The sixth amendment says that people have to be informed of right to a fair hearing after the arrest. (Miranda v. Arizona www.kid.laws.com)

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.