...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 to Ernesto and his conviction was not dropped. Before seeing the ruling of this case I had hoped that Ernesto Miranda would not be released from prison because of the violation of his Fifth Amendment right because he was clearly guilty. Not only did the woman he had taken advantage of identify him in the lineup, but the fact that he had been previously arrested simply gave it away he...
Words: 806 - Pages: 4
...someone lives, dresses, or acts outside of their working environment unless it has to do directly with the company itself. If oiler was going around representing Winn-Dixie in any way then yes I could understand why the company would feel a little threatened. I feel that the decision to fire Oiler was based off of someone’s personal feelings towards Oiler being a cross dresser which is very unprofessional, a company should not fire anyone based on personal feelings but instead on how could this effect the company. On the clock Oiler was a very professional employee for twenty years. Not only was Oiler’s employee rights violated but his civil rights also. The seventh Amendment to the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring based on sex, religion, and national origin. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government not deprive any individual of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. By firing Oiler for cross dressing is depriving him of living his life in which I do not believe that companies should legally be able to fire employee’s for this or any other action that is personally done outside of the work place. 2) Some of the consequences I see for companies that punish employees for certain off the job behaviors are many law suits especially if the behaviors have absolutely nothing to do with the company. There are many things that could happen to employers who practice this, one example is...
Words: 789 - Pages: 4
...February 25, 2013 PLS 135 Miranda vs. Arizona In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was the plaintiff and the state of Arizona was the defendant. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of the March 1963 kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl in Phoenix, Arizona. After the crime the police picked up Miranda because he fit the description of the girl’s attacker. The officers took him into an interrogation room and told him that he had been identified by the victim, although that was false. After the police questioned Miranda for two hours, he confessed. At the trial, the defense counsel tricked one of the detectives into admitting that Miranda was never given the opportunity to seek advice from an attorney before his interrogation. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 40-60 years in prison. When he tried to appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court set aside his conviction. Then Chief Justice Warren wrote: “Prior to and questioning, the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed…” Miranda was retried, only this time without his confession being introduced into evidence at the trial, he was convicted again. Even though his original...
Words: 589 - Pages: 3
...truth is unassailable. It may be worn down by the vile haze of this world and smote by all forms of injustices that man created for his own tragic plight- but at the end of the day- it prevails and unleashes a reverberation for the whole cosmos to make it known. This is evident in the film for it rendered that truth begets justice. Justice might be a fairytale that is deemed to be unviable for a distraught woman like Elizabeth Parsons, having convicted of a crime unimaginable beyond her sanity. Her life might took the 180-degree turn despairingly, but it also revolve drastically consenting her to winch up justice with her own hands and get her back on her feet- taking what are rightfully hers. Thanks to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states that "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…", her long-time thirst for the verity was quenched and she has found new freedom. Indeed, she has been through the hardest ways and tightest spots to say that justice is served. On the other side of the story, appealing from what is reel to what is real- What are the odds that await those ill-fated ones convicted with the crimes that they never did? Not all people are as determined and fortunate as Elizabeth who managed to make justice resurface with her own initiative and might. If you’ll take a closer spectacle on the subtly deteriorating condition of “blotched justice” that has been...
Words: 325 - Pages: 2
...Comment :1 Which warranties, if any, has the manufacturer of the air conditioner breached? For a manufacturer to be liable for consequential damages caused by a breach of warranty, the consequential damages must be foreseeable to the manufacturer. The book states: The most common types of product liability cases are based on the following types of defects: 1 Design defects A product with a faulty design exposes its users to unnecessary risks, and products must be designed with all foreseeable uses in mind. Cars must be designed in view of the probability of accidents. To make the best possible case in the event of product liability suit, it is helpful for the manufacturer to have complied with all federal and state regulations on the product. It is also helpful if the manufacturer has used the latest technology and designs available within the industry and has met industry standards in designing its product. 2. Dangers of use due to lack of warnings or unclear use instructions Manufacturers have a duty to warn buyers of a foreseeable dangerous use of a product that the buyers are not likely to realize is dangerous. They also have a duty to supplement the warnings. Manufacturers must also give adequate instructions to buyers on the proper use of the product. 3. Errors in manufacturing, handling or packaging of the product. The breach of duty is the most difficult form of negligence to prove. The large number of handlers in the process of manufacturing and packaging a...
Words: 1124 - Pages: 5
...proceeding will be fair and that one will be given notice of all the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away ones life, liberty or property. Due process originated in 1355 in chapter 39 of the Magna Carter although some believe that it goes back farther then that. When due process was discussed in the Magna Carter, it was know as the “law of the land”. Due process is discusses in the fifth as well as the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the U.S. Constitution, it states that no person shall be denied the right of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. The due process law means that a person has to be notified of any charges brought up against them. This also means that the accused person has the right to a fair hearing. Explain how due process protects the accused against abuses by the federal government. The due process clause in the Fifth Amendment was intended by the framers to prevent abuse of power on the part of the federal government. Before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, the Bill of Rights only protected citizens from unfair treatment by the federal government. The exclusionary rule protects the accused because it states that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot b used in a trial. If evidence that was obtained falls under the exclusionary rule any other evidence obtained would not be admissible during a trial. The reason being is that the new evidence would not...
Words: 698 - Pages: 3
...Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) Facts: Defendant Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody and put into an interrogation room after he was accused of rape and kidnapping. After he was interrogated by two officers for two hours he was pushed to give a written confession. During his interrogation Miranda was never made aware of his basic rights and the confession stated that he had voluntary provided this information. The officers claimed that the confession was made without any promises of immunity, threats and that Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights and that he understood the statement that was made against him. Issue: Did the prosecution have the ability to make use of statements that were given in the form of a confession given by a suspect? In the event that the suspect is not made aware of their basic right against self-incrimination and the basic safe guards that are granted by the constitution. Holding: The court concluded that a set of warnings must be administered before anyone is taken into custody and any interrogation is started. The instructions must include that the suspect has the right to remain silent and that anything that is said can be held against them in court. In addition the suspect must be informed that they have the right to an attorney and if they don’t have the money for one, one can be provided for them. And last but not lease the suspect has the right to stop the interrogation anytime. Reasoning: The court was concerned...
Words: 618 - Pages: 3
...United States Supreme Court has the authority to make the 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...
Words: 1162 - Pages: 5
...5th Amendment Right to be Free of Self-Incrimination Let me first begin by explaining the 5th Amendment. According to the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In summary, the 5th Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination. Next let me briefly explain the Miranda v. Arizona case. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. After several hours of being interrogated, Miranda finally confessed and agreed to sign a written statement that included a typed disclaimer stating he had full acknowledgement of his legal rights to include understanding that any statements can be used against him and that he voluntarily waived his rights. In actuality, Miranda did not have an attorney present during his questioning, or at his preliminary hearing. The fact that he was not even aware that he had the right to consult with an attorney prior to his court appearance violated...
Words: 615 - Pages: 3
...Unit 5: Assignment Joyce Ann Craig Kaplan University CJ101: Introduction to the Criminal Justice System Prof: Douglas Robinson March 10,2015 1.) What is due process? Due process is fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement. Is part of the Bill of rights and is the Fifth Amendment (No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. George Mason, December 15, 1791). 2.) Why is due process such a central notion in American criminal justice? The due process is such a central notion in the American criminal justice because the process in witch an assortment of tasks are to be carried out and they could be anything from filing court papers, serving legal documents and document retrieval. The main principal of the job is to deliver legal documents to the other person which is known as the defendant. 3.) What would our justice system be like without due process? If our justice system did not...
Words: 522 - Pages: 3
...confessed to the crimes. He then stood trial were this confession being the only evidence from the prosecution and he was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Ernesto Miranda never finished the ninth grade, had a history of mental problems and received no counsel during the interrogation or trial. Following his conviction, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court “claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” (Landmark Cases). The court upheld the conviction. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally looked at the case in 1966. Upon evaluation of the case the court found many flaws in the arrest of Ernesto Miranda. Under the Fifth Amendment the suspect has right to refuse to be a witness against himself and the Six Amendment, which gives a guarantee to a criminal defendants the right to an attorney (Landmark Cases). This is the police’s duty to inform all suspects of these rights, something that was not given prior to the two-hour interrogation. Chief Justice Earl Warren made this all part of the written decision in a 5-4 ruling by The Supreme Court that overturned the conviction of Ernesto Miranda (Landmark Cases). Ernesto Miranda would later be retried and convicted of the same crimes without the use of his confession. However, the Supreme Court now made it mandatory for police to tell someone being detained or interrogated there, which are known today as Miranda Rights. These rights now inform the suspect...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
...Patty Hearst had not been seen in months when, in February of 1974, surveillance videos of her and the group that kidnapped her surfaced showing them committing two armed robberies (FBI). A terrorist group kidnapped and ransomed her earlier that year; though, no one could find Hearst until months after the videos surfaced (FBI). After being found, Authorities put Hearst on trial for the crimes she had committed while kidnapped. Hearst’s case brought up many questions on how to proceed, to prosecute or not, as the defenses case rested on her not having free will during her time with the terrorist group. Hearst’s defense argued the group had brainwashed her and she could not be punished for her actions. The prosecution said she had willingly joined the group and chosen to not just stay a hostage. Did Hearst act out of free will or was she forced? Disregarding the unknown details of the case, one can look at Hearst’s situation through different philosophical theories on free will, including Determinism, Compatibilism, and Autonomy, and these lenses can illuminate the central issue of this case, and of our lives, which is if we have free will or not. These frameworks of Determinism, Compatibilism, and Autonomy try to conclude if we are responsible for our actions and, in a larger sense, if we have free will. To know if we have free will, we have to know what it is. The Oxford English Dictionary defines free will as “unconstrained will, or unforced choice.” Thinkers like Blackburn...
Words: 2466 - Pages: 10
...FACTS: Richard Barry Rocker and Joseph Cava [defendants-appellants], having waived a jury trial, were tried in the circuit court of the second circuit for creating a common nuisance at Puu Olai beach, County of Maui,contrary to Section 727-1 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. On February 26, 1969, officers of the Maui Police Department received a phone call from an anonymous person and, thereafter proceeded to the Puu Olai beach to look for nude sunbathers. The police surveyed the beach from a ridge and saw the defendants lying on the beach completely nude, one on his stomach and the other on his back. The officers then arrested the defendants for indecent exposure. It was admitted by the police officers that defendants were not at any time engaged in any activity other than sunbathing. At the time of the arrest, there were several other people on the beach. The prosecution offered testimony of one of the arresting officers that the beach was a popular location for fishermen. Defendants testified that the public in general used the beach,and that they observed between 20-25 people on the beach over a two-month period. Although the beach is isolated by a hill and a ledge, away from the view of the public road and adjoining beaches, it is accessible by a well-worn path. HISTORY: Circuit court of the second circuit found defendants guilty for violation of HRS § 727-1. Defendants appealed. ISSUE: Was the defendants' nude sunbathing at a place so public that a trier of fact...
Words: 495 - Pages: 2
...Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) was a Supreme Court decision regarding minor’s, who is in custody, Miranda Rights during his or her police interview. The issue came about when Michael Alvarado, seventeen year old from California, was interrogated by law enforcement officers about his involvement in a murder without his parents present. “During the interview, Alvarado confessed involvement. Based, in part, on these statements, Alvarado was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted robbery” (Oyez.org). Alvarado was never given his Miranda Rights, which created the question of if a minor is entitled to his or her Miranda Rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The United States Supreme Court addressed this question in Yarborough v. Alvarado...
Words: 290 - Pages: 2
...of the deal included Pfizer corporation who would also put a research facility in the area. The development would match what Pfizer corporation was planning and would also increase revenue, create jobs, and promote the waterfront area. This would then be the start of a much needed revitalization of the rest of the city. The New London Development Corporation and other nonprofit corporations planned to bring in Pfizer with hopes of an economic boost. Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute Kelo and other residents are challenging the New London's legal authority in taking their homes. They are questioning if the property meets the requirements as public use within the means of the Taking Clause and the Fifth Amendment. New London's plan is to develop a 90-acre area on the waterfront near the Fort Trumbull State park and Pfizer's global research center that was purposed to open in 2011. Now some of the changes would be open to the public but not all would be open to the public. Subject Court Final Decision: For New London, Lower court reversed. The court rejected that all the development acquisitions were unconstitutional. Summary of This Final Court's Reasoning The...
Words: 402 - Pages: 2
