...Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery (Landmark Cases). After being arrested, Miranda was interrogated for hours where Miranda allegedly 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...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
... Miranda V. Arizona (1966) No. 759 In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of a 18 year old female although he confessed under police interrogation, he was never informed of his right to remain silent. Miranda was eventually convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court in 1966 claiming his confession was unconstitutional. In the case the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not law officials must inform a defendant of his or her rights prior to investigation. The court reviewed three other cases, in Vignera V. New York, Westover V. United States, and California V. Stewart in all these cases suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, and prosecuting attorneys in rooms that where cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. The case was argued between the days of Feb 28, Mar 1, & 2 (1966) on June 13, 1966 under Chief Justice Earl Warren who had presided over the landmark Brown V. Board of Education (1954). In a 5-4 decision the court overturned Miranda’s conviction because Miranda was not explicitly informed of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution thus to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law the court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated. The mandatory Miranda Rights begin with” the...
Words: 498 - Pages: 2
...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
...Law enforcement officials elicit false confessions from people more often than I am sure many of them would care to admit. This outcome can often be attributed to the defendant’s incompetency about their rights upon arrest prior to interrogation. Following the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) at the time of arrest, law enforcement officials are required to inform the defendant of their Miranda rights before the officers can interrogate the defendants, these rights are as followed; You have the right to remain silent, if you give up that right 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 one, one will be appointed to you. You may to invoke these rights at any time. These rights may seem simple and easily understood; however, research suggests that even educated undergraduate students have misconceptions regarding the Miranda rights. If well-educated individuals have misconceptions about their rights, how can we expect criminals with the average education level of less than a high...
Words: 1078 - Pages: 5
...MIRANDA v. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436 (1966) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA. No. 759. Argued February 28 - March 1, 1966. Decided June 13, 1966. Facts: The United States Supreme Court combined four separate cases into one ruling due to similar issues regarding the way evidenced was obtained during police interrogations. All four Defendants (Ernesto Miranda, Michael Vignera, Carl Calvin Westover, and Roy Allen Stewart) committed separate, unrelated crimes, but all were questioned without a lawyer present and were not notified of their Fifth Amendment rights of protection from self-incrimination (“Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”). Miranda was arrested and signed a confession for kidnapping and rape. He later was found guilty and appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona. Here, the Supreme Court Justices held that Miranda’s rights were not violated while obtaining the confession. Vignera was arrested and admitted to robbery without being notified of...
Words: 790 - Pages: 4
...Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (1) Facts: Miranda was unaware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations. (2) Issues: The question is whether or not the police is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants? (3) Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court established a “bright line” rule to govern custodial interrogations, maintaining that they are inherently coercive because: (a) Suspects are held in strange surroundings where they’re not free to leave, and (b) Skilled police officers use unrefined methods to “crack” the will of suspects. The bright-line rule prevents police coercion while still allowing police pressure. During custodial interrogations, police must give suspects the famous four warnings: (a) You have a right to remain silent, (b) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court, (c) You have a right to a lawyer, and (d) If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. (4) Application: The Supreme Court further explained that the process of interrogation is already intimidating, and the suspect must be read his rights to counteract this intimidation. Then the Court outlined the way in which a suspect must be informed of his rights. This must take place before the suspect is questioned, and an officer doesn't have to do it while...
Words: 295 - Pages: 2
...In this essay I will be talking about the case Miranda v. Arizona and how it changed the criminal justice system. The case was argued between February 28 to March 1, 1966. And the case was decided on June 13, 1966. The case talks about the fifth amendment and how it applies to the justice system. In the case the keep referring to another case called Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 . The case states that in the case stated above the suspect was forced to stand for four hours and was denied the right to talk to his attorney and the attorney was denied the chance to talk to his client even though the person was in the same building. They stated that a person can’t be a witness to themselves and can’t self-incriminate themselves....
Words: 349 - Pages: 2
...Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 after a rape and kidnapping victim identified him, but police officers questioning him did not advise him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. While he pled guilty to the crime, his attorney later claimed that his confession should have been excluded from trial. The Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his rights. Lower Court Verdict Miranda’s case was initially heard by a trial court in Arizona and he was found guilty of rape and kidnapping. Afterwards, Ernesto Miranda filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court and the trial court’s decision was upheld. Petition...
Words: 623 - Pages: 3
...Facts In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested in connection with the rape and kidnapping of women. While in custody and after 2 hours of interrogation, he confessed of robbery and attempted rape. His confession and the testimony of the victim were used in the trial. The judge of the Superior Court allowed the confession was used and Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison Miranda appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court; His lawyer argues that his confession should not be used in court because he had not been informed of their rights. Arizona Supreme Court rejected his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then petitioned for the case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Intimidation deprives suspects of their basic freedom and may lead to false confessions. The defendant's right to a lawyer is during interrogation allows the offender to tell their story without fear, effectively, and in a way that all his rights will be protected. Issue: Legal issue The issue of this case is if the government is required to notify the accused detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination before questioning the accused. The government has to notify detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment. The Amendment explain “the right to remain silent, it just mean all that they confess could be used against them in court, his right to counsel and their right to...
Words: 510 - Pages: 3
...U.S. Constitution – The Miranda Warning Technically, The Miranda Warning is not in the U.S. Constitution. The Miranda Warning came about after Miranda vs. Arizona in 1966. But it refers to the Fifth Amendment right that protects against self-incrimination, or "the right to remain silent". (Cornell) Amendment V “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.” (Mount 2010) Basically, the 5th amendment is to protect people in situations from getting in trouble it even protects ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves. In particular, it stops you from having to speak to the police or testify against yourself before a court, so it is best to keep your mouth shut until you have a lawyer. It also says that the government has to have a reason for arresting you and that you have the right to a trial with a jury, that you cannot be charged with capital a crime (murder) without a Grand Jury's permission, except in cases when you’re in the military...
Words: 1245 - Pages: 5
...As a result of the Miranda cases and the Supreme Court ruling in the cases officers are obligated to inform individuals of their rights that afforded to them These rights come straight from the Supreme Court ruling and must be read to the suspect before any questioning of a suspect who have been obtained. In this famous case, Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects can only be interrogated after the police read them their legal rights. In reading on I have learn more about the details and legal legacy of Miranda v. Arizona. This cases ended up as a lock case. Some may have felt that the way to handle this was to lock away the Mr. Miranda based on the evidence. However, My opinion of the case is was the questioning, and during the interrogation a signed confession admitting that Miranda committed the crime. So there was nothing left to do but lock him away. Ernesto Miranda was detained for the kidnapping and the rape of the 18-year old woman. He was interrogated but never informed of his rights to remain silent. Miranda was eventually convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court in 1966, claiming his confession was unconstitutional. Is Miranda necessary? Yes!...
Words: 253 - Pages: 2
...University of Phoenix Material Acquiring Admissible Statements Worksheet Conduct an Internet search by visiting the state websites for Arizona, Illinois, New York, and California. Locate the legal requirements to obtain admissible statements in these states. Include your research findings in the following table. |State |Legal requirements |Precedent |Other | |Arizona |The legal requirements for |Brown v. Illinois takes |The Private Safety Exception | | |obtaining admissible statements |precedent over the admissibility|states that when a suspect is in| | |under the Arizona law, according|of a statement, if the Fourth |need of medical help statements | | |to (Arizona Revised Statues, |Amendment is violated, then any |may be admitted even if the | | |Rules of Criminal Procedure, |material or evidence, which was |Miranda law was violated in | | |Rules of Evidence & More, n.d.),|gained from the violation of the|order to save that person’s | | |“admissibility statements under |Fourth Amendment, is also |life. | | |oath by a party or witness |inadmissible. ...
Words: 1519 - Pages: 7
... 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 Arizona gave him a retrial and he was found guilty...
Words: 869 - Pages: 4
...Miranda v Arizona Westwood College Miranda v. Arizona Every time someone is arrested the police officer reads them their right, which was not always the case. They read as followed "you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you can't afford one, one will be provided to you." But why do the officers have to remind the people of their rights, because of the Miranda v. Arizona case. Before the Miranda v. Arizona case people were not reminded or even aware that they had such rights. In the 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape. He was accused of kidnapping and raping a young girl and when the officers arrested Miranda and then the victim identified him. After the trial was done Miranda was found guilty because after being interrogated for a couple hours he confessed to the crime not knowing that the 5th amendment states you don't have to plead guilty if you do not want to. That is what self incrimination is, for example when Miranda was being asked about the crime he did not have to answer he could of just said he plead the 5th and said he wanted to wait for an attorney to both consult him and be with him while he was being interrogated. If Miranda would have known that he had that right he probably would not have incriminated himself. Miranda was also known to have some mental problems and...
Words: 1127 - Pages: 5
...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 his constitutional rights. Consequently he was convicted of his charges and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. During Miranda’s appeal, his lawyer argued that he had been denied his constitutional rights for illegally obtaining his confession. Eventually his lawyer petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a hearing...
Words: 606 - Pages: 3
