ipl-logo

Steven Avery Miranda Rights Case

1087 Words5 Pages

In the case of the Steven Avery and Brendan Dasey’s trial, there were quite a few errors in the trial. Even though I believe Steven Avery is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I also believe that the law made several large mistakes. The constitutional rights that were violated by the Wisconsin justice system were among the sixth and the fifth amendments. The fifth amendment in the aspect of Miranda rights states that a person being interrogated or receiving custodial questioning must be told their Miranda rights. These 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 cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you. These rights were made to be impressed …show more content…

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is because if they gain a statement or confession without telling a suspect their Miranda rights those statements are no longer valid in any court of law.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. Miranda ended up being let go because the supreme court decided that since the defendant was unaware of his rights at the time of giving his written confession those confessions could not be used in Miranda's case. Because of this police now read everyone they question or detain their Miranda rights. In the case of Brenden Dasey, Brenden was unaware of his Miranda rights and was under the age of eighteen. Therefore, Brendan's mother should have been called and been asked if she wanted to be there or even if it was okay for them to question Brenden. Brendan’s mother states that she was never called or told Brendan was in police custody, but police have said they did call her and were given her permission. Even if what the police have said is true Brendan was unaware of his rights as an American citizen. Brendan is now sitting in a jail cell because of

Show More
Related

  • Brendan Dassey Trial In Jerican Mckinsey's

    540 Words  | 3 Pages

    Manitowoc County did not abide by the law on the Brendan Dassey murder trial. Investigators pulled Brendan Dassey out of class to question him without his parent 's consent. Investigators coerced Brendan´s statements to make Steven Avery look guilty. Manitowoc County District Attorney Ken Kratz did everything in his power to make Manitowoc County seem like they were abiding by the law when they really did not. “He said I declined to go in with Brendan

    Read More

  • Case Summary Of The Miranda V. Arizona Brief Case

    539 Words  | 3 Pages

    Selina Ledezma Mrs. Kowalski-Garza CRIJ 3310-91L March 20, 2017 Miranda v. Arizona Brief Case Citation: 384 U.S. 436 Year Decided: 1966 Summary of the facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home in Phoenix, Arizona by two officers. He was taken to the police station where he was picked in a lineup by the victim of kidnapping and rape and later identified in a robbery case. After two hours of being interrogated Miranda confessed the crime. He was not advised of either his right to counsel, right to consult with counsel, or right to remain silent before his oral confession. Miranda was found guilty by the jury and convicted to 20 to 30 years in prison after the state court and prosecutor used his confession.

    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

  • Steven Avery Case

    634 Words  | 3 Pages

    Avery kept proclaiming his innocence during his appeals. In 2001, the Wisconsin Innocence Project agreed to review Avery's case. The Wisconsin Innocence Project requested permission to conduct advanced DNA testing from the Wisconsin court of Appeals. On September 10, 2003,

    Read More

  • Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

    687 Words  | 3 Pages

    Response: Miranda v. Arizona was a case that focused on four separate court cases that involved custodial interrogations (USC, 2015). Each of these cases involved subjects being questioned by officers in rooms cut off from the general public. The main issue with these interrogations was the fact that none of the subjects were given a full advisory of their rights at the beginning of their

    Read More

  • Steven Avery Trial

    2174 Words  | 9 Pages

    However, Avery is not as guiltless as it may seem. The series proved to be rather one-sided, leaving important information and evidence out of the documentary that support the prosecution's arguments and instead, highlighting all of the circumstances that backed up the defense's case. Although some may stand firm on the idea that he is innocent, I believe Steven Avery to be a rightfully convicted, guilty man due to the abundant amount of reliable evidence the prosecution presented that all point to Steven Avery taking part in the murder of Teresa Halbach, most of which were excluded from the

    Read More

  • Steven Avery Persuasive Essay

    1628 Words  | 7 Pages

    Evidence was not properly searched and witness questions were set up so Steven Avery would be the man that the witness would choose. Steven Avery was arrested by Sheriffs order. He was denied a phone call which is legally not allowed and had his name kept off the list of inmates so that public defender’s office would not be aware of his arrest. It was obvious that they wanted Steven in there for something they know he didn’t do. After a long 18 year Steven Avery was finally released due to DNA test showing that the pubic hairs found on Beernsten was not his.

    Read More

  • The Trial Of Casey Anthony

    569 Words  | 3 Pages

    The trial of Casey Anthony was one that struck the nation in a very emotional manner. The trial was on TV for months before anyone could come out with any real answers, and even then, they weren’t the answers they were looking for, and half of them were made up. In the end the jury decided to find her not guilty, while everyone else’s opinion was that she was a cold blooded killer. Unfortunately the proper evidence just wasn’t there in the end to convict her for the first degree murder of her 2 year old daughter Caylee. This being said, if I was on the jury I would definitely have found her guilty because of the, in my opinion, extremely odd behavior that came from Casey during the entire process.

    Read More

  • Steven Avery Persuasive Essay

    1540 Words  | 7 Pages

    Imagine spending eighteen years of your life in prison for a crime you did not commit. The man who served that time will never get those eighteen years back. That man is Steven Avery. On July 29, 1985, at approximately 3:50 PM, Penny Beerntsen was attacked and raped by a stranger while running along a beach in Wisconsin (Innocence Project, 2016). After she picked her assailant out of a police lineup, he was convicted and sentenced to thirty-two years in prison, and for eighteen of those years, Beerntsen knew that her rapist was behind bars.

    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

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    790 Words  | 4 Pages

    Question 6 The ruling rendered by the Supreme Court was in support of the accused party, Ernesto Miranda. The court ruled that the safeguard provided by the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination, necessitates informing individuals in custody about their rights before undergoing police interrogation (Nolan,2021, p.161). The court rendered a decision deeming Miranda’s confession as inadmissible as evidence due to its acquisition in the absence of being apprised of his entitlement to refrain from self-incrimination and to have legal counsel present.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Warnings

    296 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda warnings are intended to ensure that an American citizen is aware of his or her constitutional rights in the event of being questioned by the police. The Miranda warning is not required in every situation, only when an individual is in police custody or being interrogated. In 1984 the case of New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court approved one specific circumstance when it was appropriate not to give a Miranda warning; and it’s exactly what the name suggests. According to the Public Safety Exception, the police can question a suspect without giving him his Miranda warning if he could have information concerning immediate threats to public safety.

    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

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights Persuasive Speech

    702 Words  | 3 Pages

    Oh yeah your Miranda rights. These are rights given to you; the free people of the United States, declaring by the Fifth Amendment that while you are being detained by a police officer they have to read your rights to you which is… You have the right to remain silence. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney and have the right to have one during interrogation. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you by the government expense.

    Read More

More about Steven Avery Miranda Rights Case

Open Document