... Supreme Court Case Analysis 2 The Miranda v. Arizona was the biggest case ever in the United States. The Supreme Court argued four different cases because of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. These four different cases were heard and it was stated that 3 of the 4 cases had written statements that were admissible in court. In this paper we will describe the facts of the four cases, we will notate when they were argued, we will describe what lawyers argued what side, we will discuss the arguments of counsel about self-incrimination and we will write about why are the cases significant to a right to counsel and self-incrimination. Miranda vs. Arizona, in this case defendant Ernesto Miranda was 23 years old when he was arrested and charged with several crimes including rape and kidnapping. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant that was living here in the United States of America. During his arrest Ernesto Miranda was notified of his constitutional rights, but in reality he wasn’t supposed to because he was not a citizen so he had no rights. Ernesto Miranda was taken in and then was questioned about the crimes that were committed, after a couple hours of interrogation Ernesto Miranda gave the police a written statement that he signed. In the statement that was signed by Ernesto Miranda it stated that he was aware of his constitutional rights. It was great that his case was overturned by the Supreme Court but after it was overturned...
Words: 869 - Pages: 4
...DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF THE MIRANDA WARNINGS Miranda v. Arizona - 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963. Upon his apprehension, Mr. Miranda was presented with a confession requiring his signature; Mr. Miranda underwent a police interrogation that was reported as spanning upwards of 2 hours – within his interrogation, he made a full confession, agreeing that he did so without duress, force, or threat. However, at no time was Mr. Miranda ever told about this right to council or his right to remain silent. Prior Proceedings: Mr. Miranda was charged with kidnapping Count I; and Rape, Count II; and pronounced guilty by the Superior Court, Maricopa County, Yale McFate, J., entered a judgment of guilty sentenced to serve from twenty to thirty years on each count, to run concurrently. (Arizona, 1965) Vignera v. New York, the defendant made oral admissions to the police after interrogation in the afternoon, and then signed an exculpatory statement upon being questioned by an assistant district attorney later the same evening. Westover v. United States, the defendant was handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by local authorities after they had detained and interrogated him for a lengthy period, both at night and the following morning. After some two hours of questioning, the federal officers had obtained signed statements from the defendant California v. Stewart, the local police held the defendant...
Words: 957 - Pages: 4
...In 1966 there was a case by the name of Miranda v. Arizona. It started off with a girl who was kidnapped and raped. She then went to the police and gave a confession. Shortly after Ernesto Miranda was captured and told to give a written confession of everything he told to the police. He also signed with an oath, which says that he was made aware of his rights and anything he says can be used against him in court. After conviction, his defense attorney appealed on behalf of the 5th and 6th amendments. They claimed that Ernesto did not understand his rights and was never made aware of them. This went to Supreme Court where Miranda’s argument was the 14th amendment, which gives the supreme court the ability to selectively Incorporate the lower...
Words: 424 - Pages: 2
...Jamie Payne Ms. Davenport March 2, 2010 G Period Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Ernesto Miranda had been living a somewhat poverish life in Phoenix,Arizona in the year of 1963. A woman had been kidnapped and raped. After she reported to the police, there had been a line up and she was able to identify Mr. Miranda. He was therefore arrested, charged with the two horrendous crimes, and questioned by police for an estimate of two hours. The officers who had been questioning Miranda had failed to inform him of his 5thamendment right which had protected him against self incrimination. During his interrogation, Miranda had written his confession to kidnapping and raping the young woman. His statement had also said he was aware of his rights so of course during his trial the prosecution had used his confession to get a conviction and put him away for 20 to 30 years for each count. Ernesto had appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme Court. Heand his attorney had argued that his confession was far from valid seeing as he had not been informed of his rights and that he hadn’t had an attorney present during his questioning. The officers who questioned him had openly admitted that they did not explain Ernesto Miranda’s rights to him at any time from his arrest to his interrogation. The state had given a good argument in that Miranda had been convicted of crime in his past years so that he clearly knew his rights. Because of this the Supreme Court of Arizona had denied the appeal...
Words: 806 - Pages: 4
...final decisions regarding our Constitutional rights of American citizens. Some court cases are relatively straightforward. However, due to the wide nature of potential situations, cases often appear that ask fundamental and difficult questions about the nature of legal principles. One famous case that comes to mind is the Miranda v. Arizona, which reached the Supreme Court in 1966. Police investigations varied between departments throughout the United States. Some procedures which some became labeled coercive began to be observed, in some urban centers. Police officers want to determine the facts in cases of criminality and to protect the public by apprehending the perpetrators of crime. Some argued that taking overly aggressive actions undermined the civil liberties upon which the American Nation was founded. Given these competing arguments, and the Warren Court’s then recent trend toward increases activism, the setting was set for a hearing of these matters in the highest court of the United States. That came in the form of Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in a serious criminal case, it involved the kidnapping and rape of a young women. His arrest was based on generally circumstantial evidence, without any clear proof. Police investigators decided to interrogate Miranda in order to ascertain the facts of the matter. Evidence in the case indicates that under police interrogation, Miranda confessed to the charges against him. A written statement was drawn up, which...
Words: 1162 - Pages: 5
...The Miranda Warning states, “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 Miranda Warning is all about questioning and not being arrested. As Officer Bates did, if an officer does not say one’s Miranda Rights, what the arrestee says in response to the questioning can not be used as evidence at trial. Officer Bates made a mistake by pressing charges against Andrew, because Andrew never said anything in the first place, which leaves Officer Bates no evidence and he was wrong for not saying the Miranda...
Words: 1014 - Pages: 5
...College | Miranda Assignment | Week 8 Assignment ADJ 275 | | | 7/10/2011 | | * When should the Miranda warnings be given and why? * How might this situation not require Miranda warnings? * Explain your reasoning. Miranda warnings should be given as soon as the suspect is in custody and before any questioning or interrogation. Miranda warnings are given in order to protect the constitutional rights of the suspect. Miranda warnings also ensures comments made by a suspect are admissible in a court of law. If the suspect is made aware of his or her rights, and choose to waive them, any incriminating statements can be used against them. If they waive the right to an attorney, they can be questioned without an attorney coaching them. A suspect may also, at any time during interrogation, request counsel. At this time, questioning must stop until the suspects attorney is present. A request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous. If a suspect decides they want an attorney after initially waiving thir rights, they must clearly state this. Officers conducting the interrogation may ask questions to determine if the suspect is indeed asking for an attorney. Example case: Davis v. US The Supreme Court ruled that clarifying statements were not required if a suspect makes an ambiguous statement of their Miranda right to counsel. The defendant Robert L. Davis, was accused of beating a sailor to death with a poolcue after an argument in a bar...
Words: 1040 - Pages: 5
...Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused Damon Gordon Kaplan University Date According to the Fifth Amendment, police officers are supposed to give John Miranda rights. The rights involve explaining to John that whatever he said at that moment could be used against him in court. They should also let him know that he has a right to counsel. Miranda rights were created in 1966 and anybody in police custody like John is entitled to them. In case John needs an English interpreter, the rights say that he is entitled to one too. An equal protection clause together with a due process is therefore owed to John even though he is illegally in the country. If a suspect is not warned about their rights, any information got from them could be suppressed in a proper motion; it cannot therefore be used against them (Batra, 2009). The detectives were therefore not supposed to conduct an interview on him before explaining the Miranda rights to him....
Words: 618 - Pages: 3
...FRAZIER v. CUPP, (1969) During the interrogation, police falsely informed Frazier that Rawls had already confessed and implicated him in the murder Frazier denied any involvement in the crime, and suggested speaking with an attorney, but police continued to question him. Police elicited a confession, which was used against him at trial. The defense argued Frazier was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine the prosecution's witness because Rawls refused to answer questions after the prosecution referenced elements from his prior statements to police. The defense claimed, under Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona, that he had not been given his lawyer. He was interrogated further and later confessed. They argued that the confession...
Words: 345 - Pages: 2
...In the United States of America, the criminal justice court system is also known as a dual court system. The court system is divided into two groups the federal and state courts. Both have their breakdown of the criminal justice courts. Every state is different and have their own breakdown. The Federal court deals with disagreements that makes the Unites States applicable for example cases that deal with the constitution and federal law or an argument between states. The State court deals with the controversy between the State laws for example marriage, divorce, criminal cases, adoptions (Comparing Federal & State, 2016.) In addition, both of the court systems are unified together, the federal court might hear cases that concerned the state...
Words: 660 - Pages: 3
...Case Brief: Salinas v. Texas Caption: Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) Facts: Following police investigations into the 1992 shooting and killing of two brothers in their home, Salinas, the defendant, was identified as the main suspect. He voluntarily not only offered his shotgun for ballistic testing, he accompanied the police to the station for interrogation. A consensus by both parties qualified the interrogation session, which lasted for one hour as noncustodial, and did not involve assertion of Miranda warnings. The defendant answered most of the questions in the interview, but remained silent and tensed on the question on whether there would be possible matching of his shotgun and the shells at the scene of murder. During the trial,...
Words: 491 - Pages: 2
...process and it ensures that none of their civil rights were violated. They are also important because the law is often unspecific to certain legal guidelines. When society and technology change law often stays the same. It is through appeals where the law changes and adapts to society. Appellate Court decisions in one jurisdiction can act as a guideline for other jurisdictions that need to make rulings on similar cases. All appellate rulings also affect law enforcement agencies as they must also adapt to the change of the law. The appeals process begins with a conviction in trial court. After that it must follow the ladder of being appealed starting with the state appellate court. Following the state court and if there is a constitutional matter or federal law matter it will then be reviewed by the federal appellate court. Should the appeal process need to go further up the ladder it will reach the highest court the United States Supreme Court who would make the final ruling. Not every case can be appealed. You can not appeal a case solely because you think you are innocent. An appeal must be made against legal issues when you prove the law was applied incorrectly. Most appellate courts will deem the factual aspects of a case to be correct. Both defendants and prosecutors may appeal a sentence on various motions. Defendants can always appeal a conviction but the government can rarely appeal a conviction because of the right against double...
Words: 1068 - Pages: 5
...Ginger Geter “The Brethren” Review “The Brethren” takes a close look at the machine known as the Supreme Court during the Burger years from 1969 to 1975. Looking deeply into the historic infighting, the controversial decisions and the sharp turn from left liberal ideological decisions to the right conservative, “The Brethren” exposes closely hidden secrets and the power of the machine that has never been seen before. The words “All deliberate speed” proved to haunt Burger along with his vote switching and indecisions, making his tenure of the Supreme Court mediocre at best. His desire to leave a legacy equal to that of the Warren court left him more concerned about perception than with the principles of the law. Burger came to the court replacing the retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren whose court handed down some very important rulings, like Griswald v. Connecticut, giving the right to privacy, and overturning the states contraception law. It also handed down the Miranda ruling, which is still used today to protect people’s rights to an attorney and from self-incrimination. The Warren Court’s most famous and issue ridden ruling was Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in public schools. This ruling was handed down in 1954, and a second Brown, Brown II was heard in 1955, but there was wording in the decision that allowed for loopholes and procrastination. Justice Black was a staunch supporter of the Brown v Wade finding, he felt that the wording...
Words: 901 - Pages: 4
...are people that will uphold the Constitution to the letter, and will put aside personal opinions. William Rehnquist’s confirmation process was very rough and he had a lot of opposition because of his views that he had expressed at a younger age. Roe v. Wade was about a woman who did not want to have her unborn child, but Texas was very strict about no abortion unless the mother’s life is at risk. Roe v. Wade is significant because it supported abortion and women’s rights. It also gave a woman a choice about what she wanted to do with her life. Justice Blackmun’s opinion made the statement that the government does not have any...
Words: 625 - Pages: 3
...determine what charges need to be filed and with the help of citizens who will then be known as the grand jury. The grand jury then must decide on what charge should be given to the defendant .Criminal cases has many consequences for the defendant. These consequences are: * Violation (strike one) it ranges up to about 13 days in jail. * Misdemeanors (strike two) are punishable up to a maximum of 1 year in jail. * Felony (strike 3) is punishable by any state prison sentence of more than just 1 year. The Fourth Amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be violated, and no warrant’s shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported, by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” Missouri v McNeely (2013) On January 9, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Missouri v McNeely. The question in this case is whether the fourth amendment “exigent circumstances” doctrine permits a law enforcement officer to take a warrantless non–consensual blood sample of natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream. The police officer did have a warrant. Missouri Supreme Court was correct when it ruled that this was an infringement of the fourth amendment which protects individuals from warrantless searches. In the United States, our legal system weighs every individual‘s constitutional...
Words: 1658 - Pages: 7
