ipl-logo

Argumentative Essay On Miranda Rights

496 Words2 Pages

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda arrested by the Phoenix Police Department, because of kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old woman ten days earlier. After two hours of being interrogated by police officers, Ernesto signed a confession of rape charge on the forms that included the typed statement. “ I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of 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”. Although, at no point did they present the Fifth Amendment to Miranda. Which he wasn 't informed "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be …show more content…

The statement will be involuntary, which in small words the evidence or justification will be thrown out the case. Court 's decision was 5-4, making Miranda innocent. This decision raised to what has now become the Miranda Warning. The judge ruled, because, of not having the Miranda rights said the evidence must be denied. Meaning, anything that Ernesto said was not or could not be count against you. Ernesto Miranda, was a very lucky men because of not having the Miranda rights said his case was a waist, unfortunately, for the victim nothing happened and is this was an affected case she also must have the right of being heard to prevent many things from this decision …show more content…

Legal law institute. Web. 3 March, 2016.
“Miranda v. Arizona”. Oyez. Web. 3 March, 2016.
“”Miranda” Rights and the Fifth Amendment”. FindLaw. 2016. Web. 3 March, 2016.
“Miranda v. Arizona Podcast”. Us courts. Web. 3 March,

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of Miranda V Arizona 384 US 436

    529 Words  | 3 Pages

    Can the confession Miranda gave be used in trial against him? In a 5-4 decision, the court determined that in order for an interrogation and the statements made on behalf of the defendant to be considered as evidence, and in order to protect the accused, the accused needs to be aware of the fact that he/she has the right to an attorney, aware of self incrimination, and will need to voluntarily give up their right to these things if they choose to do so. In this case it was decided that it was not acceptable to use the confession Miranda made against him, and his rights were violated. If any of these criteria are not met, any statements made during an interrogation cannot be used against the defendant, otherwise their rights would be violated. This case is very significant because it changed the way officers perform their duties, and all accused must be read their miranda

    Read More

  • Miranda's Confession, Injustice In Pheonix, Arizona

    364 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.

    Read More

  • Ernesto Miranda Legal Brief

    1061 Words  | 5 Pages

    Paragraph #2: The Law and Legal Questions The Fifth Amendment is “No person told you held To answer for a capital, or otherwise Infamous crime”. It means that no person can be forced to speak whatsoever. When Miranda was arrested the police were supposed to inform him about his two rights (Right to keep quiet and write for a lawyer) (United States Courts, 2017)

    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

  • Alito's Attack On Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than It Seems By Mark Stern

    1486 Words  | 6 Pages

    Through the disclosure of rights and encouragement of legal counsel, Miranda warnings provide a suspect with the opportunity to have legal representation to help protect them from unintentional or involuntary confessions. Legal representatives can provide protection against deceitful interrogation and potential violations of their rights. The second reason I support the argument is that Miranda V. Arizona prevents susceptible individuals from being influenced by forceful or deceitful interrogation tactics that aim to manipulate suspects into providing information or confessions. In many situations, police officers and other law enforcement officials will attempt to lie and manipulate a detainee into providing information.

    Read More

  • Brief Analysis Of The Miranda Vs. Arizona Court Case

    928 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Miranda vs. Arizona court case ruled that detained criminal suspects , prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self incrimination, the case was one

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis

    1124 Words  | 5 Pages

    Before the Miranda v. Arizona case occurred, multiple Supreme Court cases came about that developed in revisions to the rights of the accused that were originally stated in the Constitution. In 1936, Brown v. MS and Powell v. Alabama were two very important cases leading up to Miranda. The importance of Brown v. MS stated the use of involuntary confessions was prohibited (Harr, 2014). Powell v. Alabama justified “That a defendant must have the right to counsel during any federal or state trial involving the death penalty” (Harr, 2014).

    Read More

  • Vance V. Terrazas Summary

    584 Words  | 3 Pages

    Vance V. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980). Case Name: Vance V. Terrazas Facts: Laurence J. Terrazas, was born a citizen of the United States to a father who was a Mexican national. This led to his acquisition dual-citizenship, since Mexico followed the basis of jus Sanguinis, and the United States followed the basis of jus soli. At the age of 22, while studying in Mexico, he applied for a certificate of Mexican citizenship and was made to swear, “obedience and submission to the laws and authorities of the Mexican Republic”, and in the process, effectively renounced his United States citizenship. Later, when being interviewed by a United States consular officer, inconsistent accounts were given by Terrazas about whether or not he voluntarily surrendered his United States citizenship.

    Read More

  • Earl Warren's Supreme Court Cases

    1023 Words  | 5 Pages

    Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: Should The NSA Surveillance

    169 Words  | 1 Pages

    The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

    Read More

  • We The People Chapter 4 Summary

    501 Words  | 3 Pages

    The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

    Read More

  • The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    524 Words  | 3 Pages

    The people that were involved in Miranda v. Arizona case were Ernesto Miranda and Twila Hoffman. Miranda never had to serve his 20-30 year sentence because he wasn’t read his rights, and Twila Hoffman just lived her life after the incident. Ernesto Miranda was accused of forcefully grabbing Twila Hoffman on the way to the bus stop to go home and kidnapped her and took her 20 minutes away and raped her and then he drove to another

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Jury Duty

    577 Words  | 3 Pages

    I think that I would like to be on a jury and experience what is required of a juror, I think everyone should be a member of the jury at least once in their lifetime. Having to experience the juries’ duties on a civil or criminal case, in some instance would be hard. Especially in a murder case involving children or battered women. When the judge gives you direction to please disregard that statement. How can you disregard information that you have heard?

    Read More

More about Argumentative Essay On Miranda Rights

Open Document