ipl-logo

Essay On Miranda V. Arizona 384 US 436

799 Words4 Pages

Jesus Montoya 4410992 Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Supreme Court of Arizona Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home facing charges of rape and kidnapping. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Once Ernesto Miranda arrived at the police station he was immediately interrogated by two police officers. Id. Miranda was never warned or advised about his right to consult with an attorney prior to the interrogation or to have the attorney present during the interrogation. Id. However, two hours later after the interrogation Ernesto Miranda signed a written confession that also stated that Ernesto Miranda was aware of his legal rights even though the officers did not ask Miranda if he knew anything …show more content…

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was a case that was brought to the United States Supreme Court through a Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona. At the Trial Court of Arizona the written confession of Ernesto Miranda was admitted as evidence and the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the case. Id. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Id. Issue: Was the constitutional right of the V amendment that protects against self-incrimination violated in Ernesto Miranda’s case? Holding: Constitutional rights are the outcome of the fight against the fight of struggle, persecution and oppression. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Chief Justice Marshall had explained that our constitutional rights “were secured "for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it,” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387 (1821). Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387 (1821). Judgment: The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision that was made by Arizona in Ernesto Miranda’s case because no efforts were made by Arizona to inform Miranda about his legal rights before the interrogation took place, thus this makes the interrogation and confession unconstitutional and it should have never been accepted as evidence. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

Show More
Related

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    1196 Words  | 5 Pages

    The decision of The Supreme court for Miranda V. Arizona addressed 4 separate trials. In the Miranda V. Arizona trial while he was being questioned he had no contact with the outside world. In the trial he was not told all of his rights. The questioning brought about oral statements, three of which, were signed statements that were disclosed at trial. Miranda was arrested at his house where he was then taken to the police station, and identified by an witness.

    Read More

  • Maryland Vs Pringle Case Study

    671 Words  | 3 Pages

    Case: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003). Court: United State Supreme Court Dates: Argued November 3, 2003— Decided December 15, 2003 Parties: Maryland / Appellants, Pringle / Appellee Procedural History: Sitting in the front passenger seat of a vehicle, Pringle and the other three occupants in a vehicle was pulled over by the police. The police suspected the passengers in the vehicle had drugs in their possession.

    Read More

  • Case Brief Miranda Vs Arizona

    688 Words  | 3 Pages

    Case Citation: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Plaintiff/ Appellant State of Arizona, Defendant/ Appellee Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Court Case Essay

    1005 Words  | 5 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda was tried for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female. When they brought him in, the girl was not able to positively identify him in a lineup (Miranda V. Arizona). He was then interrogated for two hours by two of the officers that arrested him. At the end of the interrogation, Ernesto wrote and signed a confession (United States Courts). Ernesto was tried in Phoenix Arizona, but his lawyers said that the trial was unfair and that his 5th and 6th amendment rights had been violated due to the fact that Ernesto was never told his rights (Miranda V. Arizona).

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Supreme Court Case In Phoenix, Arizona

    1106 Words  | 5 Pages

    In my court case in 1963 Ernesto Arturo Miranda is being accused of kidnapping, and raping. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, saying that the police had gotten his confession unconstitutionally. The U.S Supreme Court review the case in 1966. Chief Justice Earl Warren, said that the confession could not be used as evidence because the evidence was gotten unconstitutionally. Miranda was not told that he had rights like the fifth and sixth amendment so he did not know, that is why the confession was not used as evidence.

    Read More

  • Essay On The Civil Rights Case Of Anders Vs Texas

    1386 Words  | 6 Pages

    Pete Hernandez had been tried in Jackson County, Texas.  Local attorneys Gus Garcia caught wind of Pete’s unfair, and frankly unconstitutional, ruling and decided to take the case into his own hands for an appell. Gus Garcia saw this case as an opportunity to extend the constitutional rights of Mexican Americans. Garcia teamed up with other brilliant attorneys and “they challenged the state’s systematic exclusion of persons of Mexican origin from all types of jury duty. ”(1)

    Read More

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

    1407 Words  | 6 Pages

    The lower court’s judgment is affirmed. Reasoning: Certiorari was granted in the United States Supreme Court to resolve an appealed ruling from the lower courts to decide if a prosecutor may use a defendant’s silence as a claim against self-incrimination during a noncustodial police interview. As the petitioner did not verbally invoke the privilege of self-incrimination, it was found unnecessary to answer this specific claim, as the Fifth Amendment is a privilege against self-incrimination that should be expressly invoked by the defendant who desires the protection by claiming

    Read More

  • Patrice Seibert Case Study

    679 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court was then not capable to reach the necessary popular vote to embrace a clear underlying principle for their decision, but confirmed that the state Supreme Court’s reverse of Seibert’s conviction. The purpose for this is that the Court was unsuccessful to create a common opinion. So with an explanation, the nature of and underlying principles behind the Miranda warning, Justice Souter clarified that the declaration of guilt without former warnings are normally suppressed, while confessions following the Miranda warning and waiver are almost always permissible. This all-purpose guess is likely because Miranda warnings produce an educated choice by suspects, signifying an honest purpose concerning whether or not to speak to police, thus creating an assumption concerning the admissibility. “Justice Souter also pointed out that the Court had reaffirmed Miranda, refusing to return to the prior regime in which statements were evaluated individually for involuntariness, and maintain a clear set of expectations regarding law enforcement behavior” (Missouri v. Seibert,

    Read More

  • The Bill Of Rights: Miranda V. Arizona

    632 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Bill of Rights; a document made to protect the citizen's rights and liberties. The Amendments in the Bill of Rights grant every citizen equal rights and prohibits the government from violating these rights. In the case Miranda v. Arizona (1963), Ernesto Miranda committed two serious crimes and confessed to them when questioned by police. However, Miranda was not read his rights and was unaware of his Constitutional right to remain silence. It is important for every citizen to know their rights; even citizens who commit the worst of crimes.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    790 Words  | 4 Pages

    In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court declared that criminal suspects being held by police must be notified of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination before police interrogation begins. Ernesto Miranda, a native of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested in 1963 on suspicion of rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The alleged kidnapping and rape victim in Phoenix, Arizona, has positively identified Mexican immigrant Ernesto Miranda from a police lineup. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda finally confessed to the crimes for which he was detained. Question 2

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona

    1287 Words  | 6 Pages

    The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures

    Read More

  • The Miranda Warning

    856 Words  | 4 Pages

    They lose first instance, In July 1963, Ernesto Miranda was finally sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for the kidnapping and rape of Lois Ann Jamesonthe. In every state in America, there is at last one higher court to which a person can appeal his conviction. In Arizona, in 1963, there was only one level of appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court, Moore appeal the case , Alvin Moore pointed out that police had not observed proper procedure in their arrest and interrogation of Miranda. Moore was convinced that the police had used Miranda’s ignorance of his rights to their advantage and that they had manipulated him into witnessing against himself ,Moore and Miranda also lose this court ,because One of the key procedures of an appellate court is to review earlier court cases to see how those cases might relate to the case under review .this cases was : Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), they involved some similar

    Read More

  • Key Constitutional Concepts By Leonore Annemore Annenberg Institute For Civics

    644 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer. To begin, the video retraces the steps leading up to the Constitutional Convention in Virginia in 1787. It opens by explaining the conflict that led to the Revolutionary War and the fragility of the new nation.

    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

  • Julius Wolf Case Brief Summary

    369 Words  | 2 Pages

    Facts A lady had an abortion performed through back alley means, and had medical complications that resulted in her being in the hospital and questioned by police. She gave them the name of the petitioner, Julius Wolf. The police then followed up on the lead and entered his office without a search warrant and seized items as evidence, one of which was a list of patients. The police then used that evidence to gather more testimony against Wolf.

    Read More

More about Essay On Miranda V. Arizona 384 US 436

Open Document