ipl-logo

Miranda Rights

1747 Words7 Pages

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you…” These words have been used during arrests since the late 1960’s, although most people are familiar with the first line, “You have the right to remain silent,” the rest of the speech is essential to making an arrest. The Miranda rights, or Miranda warnings, are rights printed on cards that are read by police officers before arrests. These warnings come from a famous case in 1966 called Miranda v. Arizona, in which a man was arrested without knowing his rights. This is a direct violation of the Constitution because he wasn’t told …show more content…

Prior to this, his girlfriend, Twila Hoffman, had her car’s license recognized by a rape victim’s brother. The victim, Ann Jameson, recognized Ernesto in a police lineup a few days later as the man who assaulted her (Landmark Cases of the Supreme Court, Ernesto Miranda). He was officially charged for robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a handicapped woman. (Legal Cultural Literacy Test, Ernesto Miranda) After being identified, Ernesto was interrogated for two hours until finally signing a confession. (United States Courts, Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona) Yet, during his interrogation he was not aware of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer, despite what his written and signed confession stated. (Cornell Legal Information Institute Fifth …show more content…

He only served a third of his sentence and, after requesting five times, he received parole in 1972. Eventually he returned to jail for different crimes. (http://www.nndb.com/people/596/000125221/) While working as a delivery driver, he made a living by autographing Miranda Warnings for 1.50$ after prison. At the age of 34 he was declared dead in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. The cause of death was a stab wound, which happened during a bar fight in 1976, ten years after the Supreme Court ruling.

Show More
Related

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

    734 Words  | 3 Pages

    It was later noticed upon an appeal to the state Supreme Court that the officer who arrested Miranda, did not state his basic rights and was affirmed. (legaldictionary.net, Procedural History). This also means that Miranda couldn’t be set free because he did not ask to have an to be attorney present. But, Miranda and other defendants with similar cases petitioned to the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate the case and to have another ruling. The overall ruling of the final case to have it mandatory to read these specific rights was passed and are vital to the process of being arrested and

    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

    Later he got 20 to 30 years in prison for assaulting and armed robbery. Later his lawyer appealed to the United States Supreme Court of Arizona asking if he was given the rights while being arrested. On June 13, 1966 their appeal was accepted and the court agreed on hearing him because as it turns out he was interrogated for 2 hours without knowing that he has the right to remain silent (5th Amendment) (United States Courts, 2017), and the right for a lawyer (6th Amendment). “Miranda v. Arizona” was called that because the police made a mistake and it was the police of Arizona which made it go farther to the Supreme Court which is bigger that's why the state counts. (United States Courts, 2014).This is why the case began.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    581 Words  | 3 Pages

    He was interrogated for two hours before he signed a written confession. According to the Arizona Supreme Court none of his rights were violated, but after his prison sentence he claimed that the police violated his 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. When he took this to court their decision was 5-4, this became identified as the Miranda Warning. The

    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

  • Miranda Warning Dbq

    883 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).

    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

  • 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

  • Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRA)

    972 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1999) Procedural History The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court convicted and sentenced the defendant for crimes he committed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA).

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights Case

    989 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.

    Read More

  • The Fourth Amendment

    948 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Fourth Amendment affirms that "people are secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, no Warrants shall issue, describe the place to search, and the persons or things to be seized. " There should be a warrant for everything if what a person is being charged for is risking their rights as a U.S citizen. For example the privacy of a citizen is safe under the Fourth Amendment. Second, the property belonging to U.S citizens is secure from search and seizure without a warrant. Third, due to the Fourth Amendment, any citizen is safe from unfair arrests.

    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

  • Montoya's Life In Prison Failure

    642 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thirteen years, seven months and thirteen days. That is the time Lawrence Rubin Montoya spent in prison for a crime he did not commit. Montoya was sentenced to life in prison in November 2000 after he was allegedly pressured by Denver police officers into confessing to murdering a Denver school teacher. In June 2014, his conviction was overturned thanks to DNA retesting of evidence. Now, the 31 year old is suing the city of Denver and members of the city’s police department in federal court for $30 million, citing the interrogation process and later failures by the District Attorney’s office.

    Read More

  • Jeffrey Dahmer: Serial Killer And Sex Offender

    898 Words  | 4 Pages

    He was sentenced to 15 life terms, for a total of 957 years in prison. During his prison time he was attacked twice, the first attempt was someone sliced his throat with a razor and only left scars, however the second attack killed him, he died on the way to the hospital from severe head trauma on November 28, 1994 in Portage, Wisconsin (“Jeffrey

    Read More

More about Miranda Rights

Open Document