ipl-logo

Brief Analysis Of The Miranda Vs. Arizona Court Case

928 Words4 Pages

“You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law, you have the right to an attorney” this is a phrase commonly used by police officers and is known as your Miranda Rights. In 1963 a man named Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape, kidnapping and an armed robbery. The police than interrogated him for hours without once informing him of his constitutional rights. Miranda then confessed to the crimes as an officer was recording.He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. 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 …show more content…

At Miranda first trial the prosecution's case consisted only of his confession. Miranda argued that he should not go to jail because he was not clearly read his rights which violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. This means the police put him in a hard situation without informing him on what was he was allowed to do but instead waited for him to give up and plead guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court ignored the Escobedo rule, which states, evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. His conviction was erroneous, and Miranda deserved a new trial. In 1966 Miranda then appealed to the U.S Supreme court which then reviewed his case in 1966. This later leads to a partial success on Miranda’s …show more content…

The supreme court revealed, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in the trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. This made it harder to convict Miranda. The U.S Supreme court ruled that the Arizona supreme court could not use the confession because it was the police's duty to inform criminal suspect of their Fifth and Sixth amendment. The the Fifth Amendment states that the police must inform the criminal suspect he/she does not have to testify against himself/herself. The sixth amendment states that the suspect has the right to an attorney. As an effect criminal suspects now will not be able to use being misinformed as an

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of Miranda V Arizona 384 US 436

    529 Words  | 3 Pages

    The conviction was based off of the confession Miranda gave and the eyewitness identification of him by the victim. After Miranda was convicted, he was represented by different lawyers in front of the supreme court and they argued that the police questioning/interrogating without an attorney present violated Miranda’s fifth and sixth amendment rights, and therefore should not be able

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    694 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

    734 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Miranda v. Arizona Case of 1966 The Miranda v. Arizona case was a Supreme court case that was caused by an arrest that happened on March 13th, 1963. A man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home for sexual assault and kidnapping and brought into the police station for questioning. The interrogation went on for two hours when finally, police got a written confession by Miranda that he did these crimes. After police got his confession, it was later realized that Miranda wrote this confession without being informed of the right to have an attorney present while being questioned. It was ruled that Ernesto was guilty of the crimes and an appeal by the Supreme Court concluded that his rights were not violated because he did not

    Read More

  • Case Study Of Miranda V. Arizona

    845 Words  | 4 Pages

    The police officers told Miranda that he was not obligated to have an attorney present. After two hours of being in custody he signed a statement admitting that he knows the full knowledge of his right and anything from the statement can be used against him. His statement went to a jury at his trial where he was found guilty and was sentenced to prison. The Arizona supreme court did not think that Miranda’s rights were

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs. Arizona Policing Cases

    538 Words  | 3 Pages

    Since the Police never informed Miranda of his rights he had no counsel, never finished the 9th grade, and had a former history of mental instability. The prosecution on the case only used his own wrongfully obtained confession against him, and sentenced him 20-30 years in prison. He had appealed to the Arizona Supreme court claiming that the Police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession, the court disagreed with him and upheld the charges and

    Read More

  • Why Was Salinas Silence A True Exercise Of The Fifth Amendment?

    1407 Words  | 6 Pages

    Both courts affirmed the lower court’s judgment and rejected Salinas’ claim that his silence was used in chief violation of the Fifth Amendment. Issue: Can one fairly conclude that an individual who agreed to be questioned has revoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection? Was Salinas’ silence a true exercise of this amendment? Rule: The petitioner must specifically call on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the time he relies on it in order to receive the benefit. Decision: Salinas’ claim fails because he did not verbally invoke this Fifth Amendment privilege in his response to the officer’s questions.

    Read More

  • Earl Warren's Three Major Court Cases

    1064 Words  | 5 Pages

    Earl Warren Many chief justices have worked on popular cases over the years. In particular I am going to be talking about Earl Warren; his early life, he was a past chief justice, why he chose what he did and the three major cases he worked on throughout his life. All of these affected our lives in one way or another. The three cases Earl Warren worked on were Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Benton v. Maryland.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

    587 Words  | 3 Pages

    David Joseph Solis Prof. Richard Manderfield WRA 115, Section 001 October 7 2015 Miranda v. Arizona, a Spark of Democracy In 1966, a Supreme Court ruling became one of the most important cases that are studied in today’s history classes. Miranda v. Arizona, a case that began when Ernesto Miranda confessed to the authorities that he indeed, raped a teenage female. Even though Miranda did not know his rights nor was he informed of them, he signed a confession where it stated that he knew his rights. The Miranda v. Arizona case did not only establish the Miranda rights, but became a symbol of democracy; an important cultural value in the United States.

    Read More

  • Steven Avery Miranda Rights Case

    1087 Words  | 5 Pages

    In the earlier paragraph I stated that our Miranda rights are the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, the right to an attorney, if you can not afford an attorney one will be provided for you. The reason police have to tell a person these before detaining or questioning is because if they gain a statement or confession without telling a suspect their Miranda rights those statements are no longer valid in any court of law. This is exactly what happened in the Miranda V. Arizona case. Miranda was detained by police for questioning and gave a written confession after two hours of custodial questioning. Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and killing a girl and was sentenced to twenty five to thirty years in jail.

    Read More

  • Danny Escobedo Pros And Cons

    1392 Words  | 6 Pages

    Although in this case, Escobedo confessed his crime before his rights were stated to him, therefore, "... no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial," (ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS) which caused his confession overthrown by the court. In addition, this case is interesting to me because I believe it was fascinating how the accused murderer, Escobedo, was able to get away with his crime simply because his Miranda Rights were not stated to him before he confessed and was denied his right to counsel which was the police department's

    Read More

  • Essay On Miranda Vs Arizona

    1213 Words  | 5 Pages

    During this case, there was dissent among the justices. This caused the results from the trial to be delayed, but would provide the best answer possible for law enforcement agencies around the United States. As Levenberg, T.O. (1995) states, “The court in Miranda created these procedural safeguards to adequately ensure that the accused know their rights and that the police honor them.” Out of the nine Supreme Court justices, five voted that the initial evidence could not be used because Ernesto Miranda was unaware of his rights to a legal counsel and his right to not give a statement until he had a legal counsel. These justices would go back and review three other cases as they made their decision; Westover vs. United States, Vignera vs. New York, and California vs. Stewart.

    Read More

  • Earl Warren Accomplishments

    1055 Words  | 5 Pages

    Arizona that criminals must be informed of their rights before being prosecuted. Today, this ruling requires that police inform criminals of their right to remain silent, and that anything they say can be used against them in court. These rights, also known as Miranda rights include the criminal’s right to an attorney. If the police do not read a person’s Miranda rights when arresting a criminal, the court judging the case can discard any evidence that the criminal reveals while in police custody since he or she was not informed of their right to remain silent. While the Miranda decision was unpopular at the time, it was critical to ensuring that criminals were being persecuted for the appropriate crime on clear evidence and received the right to a fast and proper

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    790 Words  | 4 Pages

    The most important source of motivation was the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which prohibits governments from compelling their subjects to give evidence against themselves. The court also noted the precedent that was established in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), which decided that suspects have a right to have counsel present during police interrogations. This case was cited because it established that defendants have a right to have an attorney present. In addition, the court went over the significance of the 14th amendment as well as other procedural safeguards in ensuring the protection of people’s constitutional rights. The decision that was made by the court in Miranda v. Arizona was based on the legal principles that were discussed

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

    Read More

  • The Case Of Ernesto Miranda

    484 Words  | 2 Pages

    A man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was taken to custody in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. Then was sentenced 20-30 years in jail. He was interrogated for two hours by two police men, every individual should have their own rights to ask and answer questions unless told to Mirandize by a police man or the judge. Ernesto was being asked questions during the interrogation and the thing you’re supposed to do when they ask you questions is answer the questions, so Ernesto should have the right to talk during the interrogation. Ernesto didn’t know he should have a lawyer present during court when they discussed about his case of kidnapping and rape.

    Read More

More about Brief Analysis Of The Miranda Vs. Arizona Court Case

Open Document