ipl-logo

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

1269 Words6 Pages

Background: Miranda v. Arizona is a very important, and complex supreme court case. It is a summation of four court cases; our focus Miranda v. Arizona , Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. In each of these cases, the suspects were interrogated in ways that were not procedure and were not aware of their rights of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment allows a suspect to remain silent until a lawyer, private or provided, is there to counsel them.
Ernesto Miranda, the suspect of Miranda v. Arizona, was interrogated for two hours, recorded and signed a confession without knowing that he could remain silent until a lawyer was present. Vignera, of Vignera v. New York, admitted orally to a robbery, was …show more content…

He, as a citizen, has a right to know the Fifth Amendment protects any unfair evidence from being made, and that he does not have to incriminated himself. Arizona’s perception, I believe, are that the police do not have to tell the suspects their rights, and there is no need for a fair interrogation process. The Supreme Court of Arizona did not view this case as having a problem. The judge over looked the interrogation and failure to explains rights because of the signed confession. The Supreme Court acknowledged the wrong doing. Action: After being convicted, Miranda appealed to The Supreme Court to have his case reviewed and to be retried. Arizona tried to use the signed confession again in the new Supreme Court case. Arizona and The Supreme Court of Arizona wanted to just to convict and move on. The Supreme Court took action to prevent self-incrimination in the future and reversed the charges for Miranda.

Positions, Interests, and …show more content…

Also, that the police are there to enforce laws, and that is what they did. The interest would be to enforce the laws, prevent crimes and protect the people of Arizona from criminals. The needs of Arizona are safety of their people, and justice for victims (esteem and self-actualization categories.)
The Supreme Court of Arizona’s position would be like Arizona’s position. The position would include that the evidence from the interrogation can be used and that it is not self-incrimination. The interest is to protect the people, and convict criminals. The needs of the Supreme Court of Arizona would be safety for the people, and justice in the court.
The Supreme Court’s position was that Miranda’s rights were violated. They also held that a person must be told their rights and enacted the Miranda Rights. The interest is to preserve the amendments and make them clear, make sure the people of the United States know their rights, convict criminals, protect innocent suspects, and maintain justice. The needs of the Supreme Court would be justice and protection of the amendments and laws.

Show More
Related

  • Why Is Mcculloch Vs Maryland Important

    1933 Words  | 8 Pages

    Mucolly The Supreme Court settles yet another argument; this time, it is MuCulloch v. Maryland. The end decision helped broaden the roles of the federal government, but not necessarily supplied the government with more power. It also shows that activities that fall into the federal category are taken care of seriously and with a reason.

    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

  • Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

    687 Words  | 3 Pages

    Arizona case stated that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning (Ortmeier, 2006). These constitution rights consisted of their right to remain silent; to be given an explanation on how anything they say can be used against them; their right to an attorney; and their right to have an attorney appointed to represent them if they cannot afford one. Additionally, Metgzar (2010) indicated without rights advisory, anything admitted by a subject in an interrogation will not be useable in there trial. The ruling also encouraged the expansion of Fifth Amendment and other constitutional

    Read More

  • Injustice Miranda Cases

    345 Words  | 2 Pages

    the, 5th amendment of the United States Constitution by enforcing Due Process, the rights of the accused and the right to counsel. Ernesto Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona in 1941. (Hogrogian, J. p.103) Ernesto Miranda lived a troublesome youth. At the age of fifteen he was convicted of stealing a car, later arrested for trying to rape a woman and arrested six times by the age of eighteen. (Burgan, M. p. 16) It was not until March 3, 1963 when an assault would lead Ernesto Miranda as the main suspect in what would turn out to be a landmark Supreme Court case.

    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

  • 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 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

  • Montejo Vs Louisiana

    2786 Words  | 12 Pages

    United States, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment forbids state institutions from instigating statements of self-incrimination from defendants, specifically after the right to counsel has been “attached” to the defendant. Massiah was accused of violating a federal drug statue; he maintained a lawyer, pled not guilty, and paid bail. Massiah eventually met with a co-defendant, who had decided to cooperate with the government by recording the conversation between him and Massiah. During a conversation with the co-defendant, Massiah had unknowingly incriminated himself, and such self-incrimination would be used against him in court. However, when Massiah appealed to the Supreme Court to void those statements, the court granted his request due to the absence of Massiah’s lawyer.

    Read More

  • Earl Warren Accomplishments

    1055 Words  | 5 Pages

    One of the most influential judges of his time, Earl Warren was born on March 11th, 1891 to a Norwegian immigrant. Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles, California. He grew up in Bakersfield and attended the School of Jurisprudence of the University of California at Berkeley for his education. During these years, Warren worked as a law clerk, where he assisted local judges in writing legal determinations and opinions. The occupation granted him experience in the field of law as well as financial stability.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    790 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona examined Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights in detail. The court stressed the coercive character of custodial interrogations and the risk of defendants accidentally waiving their fundamental rights. Suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and have legal representation during interrogations. The court stressed the need to clearly explain these rights to suspects so they can make informed decisions. Miranda's warnings were implemented as procedural safeguards after the analysis.

    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 Rights Vs Fifth Amendment

    376 Words  | 2 Pages

    The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

    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

  • Landmark Cases: Barron V. Baltimore

    808 Words  | 4 Pages

    It protects a person from being used as a witness against him or herself in a criminal case. In addition, the amendment prohibits government officials from abusing their authority during legal proceedings. It also protects individuals

    Read More

More about Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Open Document