ipl-logo

Miranda Rights Case

989 Words4 Pages

Miranda rights was established in 1966. The U.S. Supreme Court decided on this after the case of Miranda v. Arizona. There was four cases that started the Miranda rights. The first case was Miranda v. Arizona which was about a immigrant who was charged with kidnapping and rape. Although the officers did not read him his rights Mr. Miranda still confessed by signing. The second case was Vignera v. New York where he was convicted of robbery which occurred three days prior to his arrest. While in custody he admitted to the crime orally twice. The third case was, Westover v. United States this case involved a man who was involved in robberies in Kansas City. After two in a half hours of interrogation by the FBI Westover signed a confession of the …show more content…

During the interrogation Stewart admitted that he robbed the decease women but he also stated that he didn't mean to hurt her. After his confession the police than released the other four who was present at the time of Stewart's arrest because their was not enough evidence to hold them. The Miranda law is protected under the Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution. According, to the U.S. Constitution the Fifth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in a criminal case. With the Miranda law while suspects are in custody of the police the must be read four rights before being questioned. The four questions that must be asked is that you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. If for any reason a law enforcement officer refuses to read someone in custody there Miranda rights than any statement or confession given by the suspect will be considered involuntary and will not be allowed to be used against he or she in the

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

  • Case Brief Miranda Vs Arizona

    688 Words  | 3 Pages

    Upon arrival Miranda was identified by the victim and subjected to two hours of interrogation. Upon the completion of the interrogation Miranda made an oral confession and signed a written statement. The statement signed by Miranda stated that the confession obtained was done so voluntarily and with full knowledge of his constitutional rights. At trial Miranda's confession was admitted as evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping.

    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

  • No Probable Cause To Arrest Hayes Essay

    551 Words  | 3 Pages

    This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Argumentative Essay

    614 Words  | 3 Pages

    As it states on pg.5 “The person who is in custody and subject to interrogation must be advised of the rights referred to in Miranda v Arizona in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against him or her at trial.”. The state argues that what he said was voluntary and that he was not under interrogation when he made the statement that he did about how much he had to drink. The sixth amendment states that one can’t incriminate oneself outside of Miranda rights. So anything said to the police or that the police have would be invalid because he wasn’t read and asked if he understood his rights. The fourth amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

    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 Case Study

    804 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona, Miranda was the plaintiff. The arguments for him were that at the time he was arrested and interrogated, he was not notified that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, and that he had the right to have an attorney present and he would be appointed one if he could not afford one. Essentially, the plaintiff wanted to make sure everyone will always be informed of his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The defendant in this case, the state of Arizona, argued that Miranda still willingly offered his confession to the police, fully aware of his rights due to prior criminal issues he had

    Read More

  • The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    607 Words  | 3 Pages

    Introduction How would you feel if you incriminated yourself because you were not advised of your rights? In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours before providing a written confession to kidnap and rape. The cops not only failed and tricked Miranda by never advising him of his rights, but the jury and the Supreme Court of Arizona also failed him. Miranda's case had a huge impact on law enforcement and the future of law enforcement to this day.

    Read More

  • Danny Escobedo Pros And Cons

    1392 Words  | 6 Pages

    To ensure that your rights are protected under the United States Constitution, the Miranda warning must be read to you upon an arrest. Danny Escobedo, a 22-year-old murder suspect, was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with a shooting of his brother-in-law, about 11 days prior. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but was released after making no statement and had his lawyer obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. In police custody, Escobedo confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim. He was not advised of his right to remain silent, violating his Fifth Amendment, and police interrogated Escobedo for several hours, while repeatedly denying his request to consult with

    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 Dbq

    883 Words  | 4 Pages

    The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

    Read More

  • The Bill Of Rights: Miranda V. Arizona

    632 Words  | 3 Pages

    Having police require to remind arrested citizens of their Constitutional rights is fundamental. Without the Miranda Rights citizens might not know the rights the Bill of Rights grants every citizen.

    Read More

  • Fifth Amendment Pros And Cons

    814 Words  | 4 Pages

    The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that a defendant, “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate

    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

  • 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

More about Miranda Rights Case

Open Document