The Miranda Rights: The Right to Remain Silent

The Miranda v. Arizona case was issued by the United States Supreme court in 1966. The Supreme court stated criminal suspects must be told their rights to consult with an attorney and their rights against self incrimination questions by police officer. The law is intended to protect an individuals 5th amendment, which wasnt the case in the Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape and Kidnapping in March 1963 that accumulated to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda never was informed of his rights that lead to what is called the Miranda Rights. This law provides people with the 5th amendment and 6th amendment so they wont be violated anymore.

Then, Ernesto was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and got a prison term of 20 to 30 years. Ernesto appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court,

This research paper will be centered on the Ernesto Miranda trial and why it was established. Next the Miranda rights when dealing with individuals that may have committed a crime. The main purpose of Miranda warning depends on whether you are a law enforcement officer or the suspect. Miranda serves to purposes,

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

Ernesto Miranda was a poor man living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. (Facts & Case Summary, 2014) On March 2, 1963, Patricia McGee (not her real name) was kidnapped and raped while walking home after work in Phoenix, Arizona. She accused Ernesto Miranda of the crime after picking him out of a lineup. He was arrested and taken to an interrogation room where after three hours he signed a written confession to the crimes. The paper on

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 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.

Miranda’s harsh times started when his mom died when he was six years old and his dad remarried another woman the following year. Miranda never bond with his four older brothers nor did he get along with his stepmother. Soon, Ernesto drifted from his dad. Ernesto started his trouble-making life in elementary school since he would always have constant miss behavioral problems and he would not go as often to school. Ernesto was an eight-grader dropout because he was arrested for car theft which in fact was the first time he was charged with a serious crime. Miranda was given a probationary sentence which did not seem to help him because less than a year later he was arrested for burglary. For this crime he was send to the Arizona State Industrial School for Boys at Fort Grant. This punishment did not seem to have an effect on Miranda. Only a month later, after he was released from Fort Grant in 1956, he was arrested for attempt of rape and assault. Upon found guilty of this crime he was send back to Fort Grant for a year, once again. The following year in 1957 he was now sixteen years old and was released from Fort Grant and left to California for a fresh start. It seemed like Ernesto was never going to stay out of jail or trouble. Months later, he was arrested for curfew violations and being a peeper which caused him to earn three days in the Los Angeles County House of Detention. It seemed that Ernesto really wanted to stay out of trouble because he

Imagine a man sitting in a strange room, afraid of the people there with him – they are people that could ruin his life forever if he says the wrong thing. He is panicking and he feels like everything in the world is working against him to get him in trouble. He is in a police station with officers questioning him intensely and he does not know how seriously they will take what he says. What if he misspeaks? What if he accidentally says something he does not mean in the context the police will use? These are fears that go through the minds of people taken into custody and accused of committing crimes. Ernesto Miranda was in a similar situation when he was being questioned based on circumstantial evidence linking him to a kidnapping and rape.

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.

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.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, 1963 by the Phoenix Police Department. Ernesto was accused of robbery, kidnapping, and raping eighteen year old women. He was accused ten days later after he was arrested. Miranda was then interrogated two hours after his arrest. Miranda signed a written confession while during his interrogation. He was not aware that he was protected from self-incrimination.

Miranda rights have become a centralized focus in the US media the past decade. From the news media to movies everyone knows their Miranda rights. Charles Jensen poem Miranda rights takes a different look at what some of those meanings, mean towards different groups of people. Miranda rights, is a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody.

The criminal case began with the apprehension of Ernesto Miranda at his home in Phoenix, Arizona and his placement in custody at a local police station. There, they had a witness who complained about the man and was ready to make identification of the criminal. However, when Miranda was identified, the police proposed to sign a formal confession. After Miranda refusal to sign the document, the police took him into the interrogation room, where he was questioned for a few hours until a complete confession of the crime. The signing of the formal confession provoked a rigorous reaction from the attorneys and lawyers that defended Miranda (Skolnick, 2011). Specifically, they claimed that the interrogating police officers did not inform Miranda

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.