ipl-logo

Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

1144 Words5 Pages

For nearly fifty years police have been reading suspects their rights because of a landmark 1966 United States Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their Constitutional right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. This protects the individual from self incrimination and if they were to speak it would be on their own free will. The United States Supreme Court has changed the way police conduct their duties to this day, while protecting an individual’s rights. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of his first crime while in eighth grade. When convicted of his crime in 1954, a felony burglary, he was sentenced to probation. …show more content…

She gave police a description that fit Miranda. Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix, Arizona, on charges of kidnapping and rape. After two hours of questioning by police, he signed a full written confession which stated:
“I….. Do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me”.
The 18-year old woman selected Miranda from a police lineup. She explains that Miranda forced her into his car and drove into the desert. He raped her and later dropped her off near her home. He claimed that his confession was invalid because it was coerced and because the police never advised him of his right to an attorney or his right to avoid self-incrimination. The court overturned Miranda’s conviction, holding that the police must inform criminal suspects of their legal rights at the time of arrest and may not interrogate suspects who invoke their …show more content…

The warning does not have to be given at the moment of arrest but only after a person is in custody and before any questioning about the suspected crime. Since 1966, the Court has decided dozens of other cases under Miranda, and they have cut back on Miranda. The most important cutback was a very early decision that the police could use a statement taken without the Miranda warnings to cross-examine a defendant if the defendant took the stand. Interrogations conducted by law enforcement are a valuable tool to obtain confessions to crimes. Even after hearing the Miranda warning, the majority of suspects still agree to talk to police officers. Perhaps they feel guilty over the committed crime, or they are hoping for a more lenient punishment. It is also possible that some don't thoroughly understand their rights, and thus talk

Show More
Related

  • Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study

    624 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although the Miranda Rights have helped many people throughout their cases, it has also hurt the police departments all across America. After the Miranda Rights were enforced to be used after arresting, the number of confessions from suspects fell sixteen percentage points. It also affected the number of cases solved because the suspects no longer confessed about the wrong they did so there were large number of cases that never gotten solved. Many crimes were let unsolved and they dramatically fell in numbers like the cases of violent crimes solved dropped 25% and property crimes solved fell as well. To put the numbers in perspective , if the Miranda rights weren 't put into place between 8,000 to 36,000, or more robberies would have been solved in 1995 according to Paul Cassell, that 's a lot of robberies that could have been

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case Brief

    870 Words  | 4 Pages

    The party of Arizona argued that his rights had never been violated, thus making his confession valid. They stated that, Miranda had signed off on the confession, therefore he was fully aware of his rights and decided to wave them. I believe that the most persuasive point made in this case is the fact that you cannot use information obtained by not informing a person of their constitutional rights in trial because if it weren’t for their lack of awareness they may not have received the intel in the first

    Read More

  • Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

    687 Words  | 3 Pages

    Response: Miranda v. Arizona was a case that focused on four separate court cases that involved custodial interrogations (USC, 2015). Each of these cases involved subjects being questioned by officers in rooms cut off from the general public. The main issue with these interrogations was the fact that none of the subjects were given a full advisory of their rights at the beginning of their

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    879 Words  | 4 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart 384 U.S. 436 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974. This case involves the fifth and sixth amendments of the US constitution, as well as the grand jury indictment clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his

    Read More

  • The Miranda Rights: The Case Of Genovevo Salinas

    306 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Miranda Rights, are well known to most of the public. So you wouldn’t think that you need to ask for them. The fifth amendment, read during the Miranda Rights, is that a suspect has the right to not self incriminate. In the case of Salinas, he thought he was pleading the fifth, but was surprised that really he was just admitting guilt. Genovevo Salinas, was sitting in silence when being interrogated, assuming that the police knew he was pleading the fifth.

    Read More

  • Principles Of Miranda Vs Arizona Democracy

    569 Words  | 3 Pages

    Before the police interrogation, which lasted two hours, Miranda was not informed of his rights which therefore caused him to be interrogated without an attorney present and it led him to self-incriminate himself. The trial “ consisted solely of his confession” (Alex Mcbride n.d.) which caused the court to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, sentencing him to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda then went to the Arizona Supreme Court appealing that his confession was unconstitutionally obtained and used against him. When the court disagreed he appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where they declared the actions of law enforcement unconstitutional because they violated the constitution's fifth and sixth amendment. Because of this, Miranda's confession could not be admissible in a court of

    Read More

  • Overview Of Miranda Ruling

    861 Words  | 4 Pages

    In March of 1963 a Mexican born immigrant named Ernesto Miranda living in the city of Phoenix, Arizona was chosen in a police lineup by an 18 year old woman who was accusing him of kidnapping and raping her. Miranda was then arrested and questioned by police for several hours before he confessed to the crimes both verbally and in writing. Miranda signed several forms when he confessed to the crimes, including one stating that his confession was completely voluntary and that he understood all his rights. But during the interrogation the police officers did not tell Miranda that he had the right to remain silent, a right granted to him by the Fifth Amendment.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis

    1124 Words  | 5 Pages

    The reason each of those amendments was brought up was to show that the Constitution was the first step to individual rights. However, as you may have noticed before the Miranda decision, the Constitution covered many rights of those accused. Those rights were mainly used inside the courtroom; not when the individual’s were being arrested and interrogated. This then led to police abuse in interrogating situations; the suspects then felt that they had to say anything just to make the law enforcement officials feel like they are being compliant (Sonneborn, 2004) This then would often lead to false confessions.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    794 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona ruling was the correct one constitutionally. Fundamental rights that must be upheld include the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination. The police shouldn't be able to coerce suspects into giving up their rights or deceive them into doing so in order to get confessions. Suspects are given Miranda warnings so they are aware of their rights and can decide for themselves whether or not to speak with the police. Therefore the decision was constitutionally correct as Miranda did not expressly request legal representation, so his constitutional rights were not infringed, the Supreme Court of Arizona said upon

    Read More

  • Miranda Warning

    714 Words  | 3 Pages

    When being interrogated, Miranda made two 2 confessions, both morally and written. Miranda was arrested and sentenced

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote this : “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” The court set aside his conviction. After a second trial, Miranda 's confession from the previous trial were thrown out. However he was convicted again and was sentenced up to thirty years in federal prison. Once he was released on probation, a violent fight broke out at a local Phoenix, Arizona bar which left a lethal knife wound which killed him.

    Read More

  • Argument Against Miranda Rights

    471 Words  | 2 Pages

    The constitution also has a set of amendments that are well known called the bill of rights, in view that they mostly deal with rights of the “people” and all citizens of the United States. We as citizens should be aware of our rights in the Constitution. As the ‘’people’’ of America should realize that any of our rights in the Constitution is subjected to frequently understanding by our courts, especially by the United States Supreme Court. The Miranda Rights should and meant to be told to those held in custody, detained.

    Read More

  • Miranda Warnings Research Paper

    257 Words  | 2 Pages

    “Miranda warnings are triggered by a simple formula: Custody + Interrogation = The requirement for Miranda warnings” (petrocelli, 2010, p.18). Questioning that occurs by a law enforcement officer after an individual has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom requires that an officer must first read the individual their Miranda rights. Officers do not always have to Mirandize citizen before asking questions only in cases where the individual is being taken into custody or is not free to leave. It can often be confusing to now whether a person is in custody, but that can be clarified by determining if the person has been told they are under arrest, or if the person has been deprived of freedom to the degree one associates

    Read More

  • Custodial Interrogation Analysis

    1188 Words  | 5 Pages

    Custodial interrogations remain a gray area that has often attracted numerous debates and raised various legal questions. This involves restraining the freedom of movement of an individual even though the said individual has not been subjected to any kind of arrest. This mostly affects minority communities even though they might not pose flight risks. It has often been documented that through custodial interrogations, law enforcement agents use various manipulation techniques that force unsuspecting individuals to give testimony that might prove self-incriminating (Dinos, 2015). For this reason, custodial interrogations are believed to infringe rights, especially since suspects are allowed to have an attorney present at all times.

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights Are More Than Just Words Essay

    557 Words  | 3 Pages

    What does the mean the Miranda rights are more than just words? The Miranda rights are more than just words on paper people have two rights in the Miranda Rights. Those two Miranda Rights are “you have the right to remain silent”, “anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law”. The Miranda Rights are more than just words.

    Read More

More about Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Open Document