Miranda

The” Miranda” rights that police are required to give persons they are about to arrest did not become law until March 2, 1966. It started when an eighteen year old women told the police she was abduct, taken to the desert and rape. The police arrested and questioned Ernesto Miranda. In 1966, the case of Miranda vs .Arizona went to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that police must advise you of your rights when they make an arrest. The Court said that when a person is arrested

silent and we would also know that anything we say can be used against us. The Miranda Rights tell us our rights that we have when we are under police and federal custody. We have the right to stay quiet when we are stopped, and we do not have to say anything. These rights also make us aware of the fact that if we decide to say something while we’re under custody, it can be used against us in the court of law. The Miranda Warning is there to protect an individual’s

Our book teaches us that the Miranda warnings are required when a suspect is under custodial interrogation. That is, the suspect is both in custody and under interrogation. I’ve chosen to discuss one case that highlights the Court’s position on Miranda during the custody phase; another case that focuses on the interrogation phase; and a third case that carves out an exception to Miranda. (1) In Oregon v Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977), a parolee was asked to come to the police station to answer

B. “In Custody” The Miranda Court limited the decision to circumstances in which the person has been “… taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.” In modern cases, custody has been interpreted to include arrests and situations in which a reasonable person (not essentially the person actually involved) would think their freedom of action was restrained to the degree associated with arrest. Whether a custodial situation exists is not always clear-cut. For

Once at the police station, detectives will conduct an interview with John asking him about the crime. Because of the Fifth Amendment the officers are required to read John his Miranda rights. The Miranda rights is used to explain that anything he says to the officers in the interviwe can be used against him in the court of law and how he has a right to obtain counsel before he answers any questions. Even though John is an illegal immigrant he is still privileged to have the right to due process

In my opinion the most important of the Miranda warning is, if an individual cannot afford a lawyer on will be appointed without a fee or cost. In the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution criminal defendants have the right to an attorney. This right is give assistance of counsel for the accused in criminal prosecutions. This is important to me because majority of defendants can’t afford an attorney to represent him/her during trial. In the state of Texas an individual charged with a Class B

Miranda rights; More than words Do you believe that Miranda Rights should exist? Some people believe that Miranda Rights should not exist. Other people believe that Miranda Rights should exist and are helpful, and I agree with those people. Miranda Rights are our Rights, they are a step in justice that cannot be neglected. Miranda Rights protect people. Miranda Rights are more than words. Miranda Rights are more than words because they are my right. Miranda Rights give me the right to

The Miranda rights were created in 1966 by the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect all suspects’ “Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions”(Miranda Rights, 2009). The Miranda rights are done once an arrest has been made or before the questioning occurs and then an officer is free to ask questions for the investigation. The suspect can either remain silent or answer the questions being asked. Suspects

Miranda rights are a set of warning imposed by the courts after the Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 decision that occurred June 13, 1966. As stated by Cassell the rights are: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before you answer any questions.

1. Explain the rationale behind the Miranda decision. The Miranda warning was put in place to help suspects from self incriminating themselves from crimes they did not commit and also helping the police properly apprehend and obtain a criminal conviction with the proper procedure. Robertson Wallace Ch.9 Pgs. 135-137 2. Do you believe the Miranda warning is still a valid concept? Why? I do believe the Miranda warning is still a valid concept as it keeps our constitutional rights in place and moves