ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

734 Words3 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 …show more content…

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 …show more content…

These rights are not only used when being arrested but also at the time in court where the jury gives your punishment (legalictionary.net, Reasoning). The right to have an attorney is also important to today’s legal system because it will allow a suspect to have the chance at staying innocent and being a free person. Throughout the process of ruling a sentence for a citizen, the jury deemed it okay to use trickery that was used on Miranda to obtain a confession in the questioning process. The Miranda case gives suspects a chance at acquiring a lawyer/ attorney and a fight for their

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

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

    744 Words  | 3 Pages

    The justice system changed by this case because, the prosecution may not utilize proclamations, regardless of whether exculpatory or inculpatory, originating from custodial cross examination of the respondent unless it shows the utilization of procedural protections powerful to secure the benefit against self-implication. “The apex of the individual-rights emphasis in Supreme Court decisions was reached in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, which established the famous requirement of a police “rights advisement” of suspects” (Schmalleger, 2018, p. 198). Furthermore the miranda rights are now included in the 5th

    Read More

  • Summary Of Miranda V. Arizona

    672 Words  | 3 Pages

    It limits the amount of power that authorities have on a person placed under custody. The right remain silent is given to avoid self-incrimination and to inform the person of the possible consequences if he or she decides to speak. The right to an attorney is given so that a suspect can have legal advice at any given point during custody and to ensure that the suspect’s right to remain silent or to speak under interrogation is being acknowledge by the authorities. The presence of an attorney can also reduce the probability of physical brutality from police to obtain a

    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

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

    1745 Words  | 7 Pages

    citizens and their rights that have been granted to them in the amendments of the constitution. All U.S. citizens are treated equally and all have the same rights that authorities must give them in order for them to be arrested or detained for violating rights that they never were stated. In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona case exercised the rights of the amendments for a man that didn’t know his rights because the police never told him so he won his case and was freed because he was never told his rights. Miranda v. Arizona was closely related to the case Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). Falk stated that the appeal of the Arizona Supreme Court ruling was made possible because the earlier decision.

    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

  • Overview Of Miranda Ruling

    861 Words  | 4 Pages

    Nor did they inform him of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Miranda’s case went to trial in an Arizona state court, with the prosecutor using the confession as evidence against him. Due to his confession he was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Because of the unlawful way his interrogation was conducted Miranda's public defender appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, where they chose to uphold the conviction.

    Read More

  • Ernesto Miranda's Fifth And Sixth Amendment Rights

    696 Words  | 3 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda, a suspect charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery, had his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights violated during a police interrogation. These injustices lead to a United States Supreme Court trial, whose outcome forever imprints our justice system. Ernesto Miranda, a resident of Phoenix, was charged for rape, kidnapping, and robbery in 1963. Miranda was identified by the victim and he was detained and interrogated by police for two hours, where he allegedly conceded to the crimes he was charged of and signed a written statement included with a typed disclaimer, without any attorney present. The police neglected to apprise Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination prior to police interrogation, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    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

  • Arizona Vs Miranda Essay

    829 Words  | 4 Pages

    The legal case of Arizona v. Miranda, which took place in 1966, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that had a profound impact on criminal procedure in the country. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, a man who had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The overall issue of the case was the admissibility of the confession that Miranda had made to the police during his interrogation, which had been obtained without informing him of his constitutional rights. The court ultimately ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence against him, as the police had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This decision led to the creation of what today is known

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Injustice

    769 Words  | 4 Pages

    With that being said, Miranda appealed the decision of Arizona and brought the case up to the highest and the court of the last resort. The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s rights were violated based on the fact that Miranda was not granted counsel. However, not only was Miranda not presented with counsel, but he was not told of his rights. He was taken from his home and was interrogated by authorities at the police station. Chief Justice Earl Warren of the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could

    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

    The Sixth Amendment right states that a Criminal Defendant, Miranda, has the right to a public trial with unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury,

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons With The Miranda Rights

    241 Words  | 1 Pages

    I don’t see any Cons; only Pros with the Miranda rights, which are that it allows the person in custody to be informed of their rights, letting them know that they do not have to speak if they do not want to. That they cannot be coerced to confess to something that they don’t want to confess to, because it might not stand up in criminal proceedings; and it covers the arresting officer and if any evidence is obtained it can be used in court. I do think the police should have to read the Miranda warning in all situations. People need to be informed. Sometimes a situation can seem so small, but I think that if this warning is given in any situation the person being detained can know that they do not have to speak without an attorney present and

    Read More

More about Miranda Vs Arizona Case Summary

Open Document