ipl-logo

Miranda Vs. Arizona Policing Cases

538 Words3 Pages

Policing was forever changed in 1966 after the deciding factor of the case Miranda vs. Arizona. The case also addressed three other cases involving custodial interrogations, the cases were Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping, and robbery, after he was identified by the victim. Miranda was not informed of his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination, and also his 6th amendment right to have a counsel. Miranda was then interrogated by the Phoenix Police where he was arrested for two hours, and allegedly confessed to the crimes which was recorded by the police. 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 …show more content…

Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals vs. Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vs. Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California vs. Stewart. In the outcome of the case we now use the Miranda Rights which are as followed "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 provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” The Police will now read you your rights if you are held in custody so that you are aware of your constitutional rights, and they are not violated in any way by 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

US 707 Fare Case Summary

556 Words | 3 Pages

Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.

Read More

Gengal V Hogan Summary

123 Words | 1 Pages

In another way, the court case of Mallory v. Hogan is the right against self-incrimination in the fifth Amendment. William Mallory was found guilty and sentenced to jail with a fine. But, it was suspended and the court placed him on two years probation. However, within the time period of the probation, the Superior Court "appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County." Mallory refused to incriminate himself and he was imprison for contempt the court and held until he willing to confess himself.

Read More

Case Brief Miranda Vs Arizona

688 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda never receive notice of his rights. The second case involved an individual named Michael Vignera who was arrested for robbery. Mr. Vignera orally confessed to officers

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

Morris Kent Case

840 Words | 4 Pages

The verdict was not found to be guilty with the counts of rape due to reason of insanity. Morris Kent was sentenced 30 to 90 years in prison and also some time in Saint Elizabeth's Hospital. Kent’s lawyer believed that the investigation was not thoroughly completed and that the indictment should be dismissed. Due to the findings of Kent’s mental issues they concluded that the waive was inappropriate. He said that Kent was denied his constitutional rights due to the fact he was a minor.

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

Alito's Attack On Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than It Seems By Mark Stern

1486 Words | 6 Pages

Through the disclosure of rights and encouragement of legal counsel, Miranda warnings provide a suspect with the opportunity to have legal representation to help protect them from unintentional or involuntary confessions. Legal representatives can provide protection against deceitful interrogation and potential violations of their rights. The second reason I support the argument is that Miranda V. Arizona prevents susceptible individuals from being influenced by forceful or deceitful interrogation tactics that aim to manipulate suspects into providing information or confessions. In many situations, police officers and other law enforcement officials will attempt to lie and manipulate a detainee into providing information.

Read More

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

1588 Words | 7 Pages

Arizona are still seen today and still have a large impact on every police interrogation carried through the entire country. The enumerated pieces of case law implemented due to Miranda vs. Arizona has created much better protections for suspects in custody and holds the state to their high burden of proof in the fairest way possible. By protecting the rights of the people, the courts can guarantee the legitimacy of their trials. The impact that Miranda v. Arizona had on the United States legal system can be perceived in nearly every case carried out since. This also spawned a wave of rights for individuals.

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

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

Argumentative Essay On The Fourth Amendment

427 Words | 2 Pages

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

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

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 Vs. Arizona Policing Cases

Related Topics

Open Document