ipl-logo

Supreme Court Case: Miranda's Case

210 Words1 Page

Reasoning: The courts decided the way they did because they felt that self-incrimination was something that should have been looked on much a higher level because everyone should have been entitled to their own rights fairly and equally. Police officers are always supposed to read a suspect their rights. There were also similar cases to Miranda’s which is what they court also took into consideration as well. Decision: The initial Supreme Court ruling had caused Miranda’s case to be overturned, he was freed from prison and returned to his home. (5-4) Decision. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and overturn the Miranda case. Comments: This was a major case which opened the door for 5th amendment rights and fairness to

Show More
Related

  • Missouri Vs Seibert Case Study

    1553 Words  | 7 Pages

    The Supreme Court took the case of Missouri v. Seibert, on the writ of certiorari to the supreme court
of Missouri. The case looks whether custodial interrogations without first giving Miranda warning of the right to remain silent and right to counsel would have produced the same confession. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, Patrice Siebert was found guilty and convicted of second murder of Donald Rector. The confession that was given was before she was read her Miranda warning and then repeated after the warning had been given.

    Read More

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

    1528 Words  | 7 Pages

    After the written confession was introduced as evidence and tried in the court case. Miranda’s case then appealed to the Supreme Court, where he stated that he would have never confessed if he would have been read his rights, and given an attorney like he asked. He didn’t argue that his confession was false or coerced, but he did argue that his rights were not read and request for an attorney was denied multiple times. (Greenwood, 5.5) Lawyers from Arizona then proceeded to say that he had not requested for a lawyer nor did he attempt when being interrogated. They also added to that by saying his confession was freely given.

    Read More

  • 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 V. Arizona Case Study

    300 Words  | 2 Pages

    After hearing the appeal and analyzing all the facts provided by the petitioner, Miranda, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda and “reversed

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona Bashlor

    1193 Words  | 5 Pages

    Arizona case is an important case that deals with Miranda given a confession without being stated his rights to him in a way that he could understand them. Miranda was one of many accused individuals that gave a statement without having his rights being read to him. The U.S. Supreme Court set aside Miranda?s confession because it was inquired through an improper interrogation. Arizona retried Miranda, and the confession was not listed as evidence against him, but his wife gave a statement only after he sued for the custody of his daughter. Then he was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison.

    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 Vs Dickerson

    188 Words  | 1 Pages

    Those opposed to the Court’s decision in Dickerson content that because of the possible Miranda violation technicalities, more bad guys will

    Read More

  • Principles Of Miranda Vs Arizona Democracy

    569 Words  | 3 Pages

    Before the police interrogation, which lasted two hours, Miranda was not informed of his rights which therefore caused him to be interrogated without an attorney present and it led him to self-incriminate himself. The trial “ consisted solely of his confession” (Alex Mcbride n.d.) which caused the court to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, sentencing him to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda then went to the Arizona Supreme Court appealing that his confession was unconstitutionally obtained and used against him. When the court disagreed he appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where they declared the actions of law enforcement unconstitutional because they violated the constitution's fifth and sixth amendment. Because of this, Miranda's confession could not be admissible in a court of

    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

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis

    1124 Words  | 5 Pages

    The reason each of those amendments was brought up was to show that the Constitution was the first step to individual rights. However, as you may have noticed before the Miranda decision, the Constitution covered many rights of those accused. Those rights were mainly used inside the courtroom; not when the individual’s were being arrested and interrogated. This then led to police abuse in interrogating situations; the suspects then felt that they had to say anything just to make the law enforcement officials feel like they are being compliant (Sonneborn, 2004) This then would often lead to false confessions.

    Read More

  • The Bill Of Rights: Miranda V. Arizona

    632 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Bill of Rights; a document made to protect the citizen's rights and liberties. The Amendments in the Bill of Rights grant every citizen equal rights and prohibits the government from violating these rights. In the case Miranda v. Arizona (1963), Ernesto Miranda committed two serious crimes and confessed to them when questioned by police. However, Miranda was not read his rights and was unaware of his Constitutional right to remain silence. It is important for every citizen to know their rights; even citizens who commit the worst of crimes.

    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

  • Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

    1872 Words  | 8 Pages

    This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all

    Read More

  • Forced Confessions

    666 Words  | 3 Pages

    The ruling in Miranda does fulfill with the tradition that people have the right of protecting themselves from self-incrimination by assuring it and letting individuals know that they have that right. Without this protection, there could be forced confessions from individuals either through threats or harm. The concept of not self-incrimination goes way back, with an example in the 1655. One of the laws of the Connecticut Colony states that no person shall be tortured to confess against themselves. This includes any circumstance and reveals how ingrain the idea of protection against self-incrimination is in our history.

    Read More

  • Argument Against The Miranda Warning

    412 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Miranda Warning, or more commonly known as your Miranda Rights, is a right to remain silent, amidst other rights, given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated. Miranda Rights are there to provide admissibility of the arrested criminals statement in the court of law. Students should not be given a Miranda type warning by the school personnel because they are not being arrested and the principal does not have the authority since it is only a discipline matter. First off, students should not be given a Miranda type warning by the school personnel because they are not being arrested. The function of the Miranda rights are to caution people on their rights while in custody to assure their testimony is useable in the court of law.

    Read More

More about Supreme Court Case: Miranda's Case

Open Document