...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 his constitutional rights. Consequently he was convicted of his charges and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. During Miranda’s...
Words: 606 - Pages: 3
...safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." (Zalman, 2008, p. 386). The Miranda decision allows an individual his or her Fifth Amendment rights which are the rights of self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment the right to an attorney. The Miranda decision impacted the criminal justice system because officers could no longer use cruel and unlawful tactics to retrieve a confession. But, overall it just allows the suspect to plead the Fifth with the right to remain silent, and have an attorney present. It does not change the fact the individual will still face charges of the crime the officers will either retrieve a confession or the evidence to convict. I do agree with the Supreme Court holding in Miranda v. Arizona because the tactics sometimes used by officers to make a suspect admit guilt is morally and ethically incorrect. There are some people who are actually innocent but after sitting in a room being pressured and confused about what is really going on I can see that some will admit to guilt just to be done but not understanding the consequences. I believe that police do obey the law and read a suspect their Miranda Rights but that they still have their own ways of manipulating a confession such as the “line-up” description reviewed in our chapter reading. Reference Zalman, M. (2008). Criminal procedure: Constitution and society (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice...
Words: 270 - Pages: 2
...Michael Crowe Stephanie Crowe born on April 12, 1985 and murdered on January 21, 1998. Stephanie a 12 year old girl who was stabbed to death 8 times. She was found lying on her bedroom floor 10ft from her bed by her grandmother. But who was to blame? Who killed Stephanie Crowe? Escondido Police Department questioned the parents, grandmother and her two sibling. Yet, police had Michael Crow, Stephanie’s older brother who was 14 years old as the main suspect. The police separated the parents from their kids. Michael was then later taken into the police department for questioning. They interrogated him for 12 hours in 3 days. Michael Crowe was interrogated without his parents’ consent. He was just a child why would he be interrogated without his Miranda rights and without parent consent? Escondido Police Department wanted to find a killer and what better person that Michael, Stephanie’s brother who didn’t know what was going on. They forced Michael into self-incrimination although he kept on telling the officers that everything that he was saying was a lie. Michael Crowe and his friends lied to the police because that’s what the police wanted to hear. They thought it would be the easy way out. Escondido Police Department told Stephanie’s parents that they had found her killer, her brother Michael had confessed to them. A lie but he had told them what they wanted from him. These officers violated Michaels and his friend’s rights because they forced them to self-incriminate themselves...
Words: 330 - Pages: 2
...Abandonment University Of Phoenix Abandonment This case presents evidence obtained by Officer Sedwick and Officer Melbourne. In late August of 2005, Officer’s Sedwick and Melbourne were conducting an investigation on Ecstasy distribution in an area in close proximity of a local university. Both officers’ have received a description of possible Ecstasy distributors by a liable source. While patrolling the streets of north Phoenix, 2 college-aged males were spotted, who fit the description of the suspected Ecstasy dealers. The officers seen these 2 males entering a pizza restaurant and decided to go in and observe these men and their actions. They were both seen talking to an older man behind the counter. The officer’s observed an exchange of unknown items between the older man and the 2 males. After the exchange, both males immediately exited the restaurant and returned to a vehicle and begin driving. The officer’s followed the 2 men to a motel. The 2 men proceeded to knock on the door of room 126. After entering the motel room and closing the door behind them, both officers’s decided to knock on the door as well. A woman who was the renter of the room proceeded to answer the door, as well as giving both officers entry into the motel room. The officer’s heard a toilet flush and immediately seen the 2 men leave the bathroom, both having a look of nervousness upon their faces. The officers proceeded to the bathroom, where several pills were seen in plain view, around the...
Words: 528 - Pages: 3
...not held in custody for criminal-investigative purposes. A citizen not in custody who is asked potentially incriminating questions by a police officer must claim the benefit of the Fifth Amendment instead of answering if he wishes to retain his privilege. For example, at a traffic stop, Miranda warning is not required unless the suspect is taken into custody. When arrested and you invoke your right to counsel before making several statements, the statements then are considered volunteered because they were spontaneous and not made during an interrogation. Also, a prison inmate is not in custody for Miranda purposes because his freedom of movement is not restricted more than it would normally be in the prison environment. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. If placed “in custody” for purposes of receiving Miranda protection, there must be either a “formal arrest, or restraint on freedom of movement with a formal arrest. But, invasive detention may, at least when conducted for criminal-investigative purposes which would receive protection under Miranda. DISCUSS IN DETAIL THE GOALS OF AN INTERROGATION. The Miranda doctrine spells out the constitutional rights and procedural safeguards, including the waiver of those rights that must be conveyed to a person before any...
Words: 1205 - Pages: 5
...Mark Tanner Ethics and Laws Criminal Justice Tutorial I chose to report the incident to district attorney. It was very challenging to choose this decision after being so convinced that the suspects were guilty of the crime. However, because my partner interviewed the boys separately didn't videotape it and the parents were never contacted this is a major violation of the law. It was a terrible thing that happened to the victim and then I feel guilty for the family, but because of the inappropriate decisions of my coworker I had no choice but to inform the district attorney. Any parent could argue under the fourth amendment right against unreasonable search or seizure, probable cause is a necessary prerequisite to interviewing the child without parental consent. "The Supreme Court recently expanded on those rolls, however, when it decided that the police must take a person's age into account when determining whether the circumstances of the case merit a Miranda notification" (Pruett, 2011). Miranda rights for minors are different from the Miranda rights of adults. In the case J.D.B versus North Carolina, police stopped and questioned the 13-year-old seventh grade student when they saw him near the site of two home break ins. The child was also later question at the school behind to close doors with an officer and two school officials and was never told that he was allowed to leave the room, given a Miranda warning or given the option for parents to be there. After the boy...
Words: 667 - Pages: 3
...metal object is discarded prior to when Officer Watson catches the suspect. Officer Watson asks about the discarded object, and then finds the knife and some jewelry. He places the suspect under arrest then continued to ask the suspect questions about the knife and jewelry. The suspect remains silent and Officer Watson takes him back to the station for further interrogation. There the suspect confessed to the burglary under questioning. Ideally the Miranda rights should be read to the suspect after he or she has officially been taken into custody, but prior to any questioning or interrogation. The officer must inform the person of his or her right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning as given in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). It is the officer’s duty to ensure that the suspect fully understands his rights – and if not to provide the necessary means for the suspect to do so. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in...
Words: 1096 - Pages: 5
...Laws are bodies of rules enacted by public officials. Laws are made to maintain and protect society. Without laws, society would be in total chaos. There are laws or rules that are written down and are suppose to be enforced, but that’s not always the case. These laws are called Laws on books. Just because it is written down does not mean it is always enforced. How laws are enforced may depend on the characteristics of those who enforce it or those against whom it is enacted. These are laws in action. Because of the change in population new laws must be made to maintain control. The Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment have a lot of effect on our laws and Due Process. Now, due process does not have a straight forward definition. It is however one protection provided by the Fifth Amendment and is intended to provide us with protection from government infringement on our civil (legal) rights. It is one of the most powerful provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states that “No person…Shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment is almost the same in definition as the Fifth Amendment. The biggest difference is that “the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly refers to restraints on state government actions: … nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law… (1868)” (After Arrest: Law, the Court, and Post-Arrest Procedures. p. 55)... “The concept of due process...
Words: 715 - Pages: 3
...My Cousin Vinny The movie “My Cousin Vinny” is a comedy film of 1992, which is an amusing interpretation of the processes of the criminal justice system. The film depicts the procedures and processes of the court and criminal justice system. There are many things that have been depicted in the movie wrongly, but some are the correct depictions of the court proceedings and the criminal justice system. Many professionals have criticized the movie for its incorrect depiction of some of the procedures and processes. The movie taps different elements of the criminal justice system as a whole. There are countless individuals who do not realize the formalities, which go into actually being convicted for a crime. My cousin Vinny explore different aspects of these pretrial stages, criminal trials and the major actors in the process of the court hearing (Crede, 2012). There are a number of similarities as well as differences amongst what the movie has portrayed and the actual process of the criminal justice procedure which will be explored in this paper. The movie revolves around two New Yorker friends, Stan and Bill, who are traveling through Rural Alabama. These two friends make a stop on their way to buy some necessities from a shop. Immediately after they leave, another car, similar to theirs, pulls over. Two men get out of the car and kill the attendant of the store and runs away. Meanwhile, the two friends, Stan, and Bill, soon realize that they have accidently taken a tuna...
Words: 1191 - Pages: 5
...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
...Miranda v. Arizona What are the important facts? Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnaping of an 18 year old girl. He was taken in custody. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. A written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession. What is the question the court is being asked to answer? Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary. How did the Court rule? Supreme Court holding" the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Why did the...
Words: 415 - Pages: 2
...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
...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
... “Exploited Youth Testifies Against Alleged ISIS-Funder; Ali Al-Talebi to Stand in Court” The prosecution’s witness, an unnamed young man, asserts that Ali Al-Talebi together with Omarjan Azari are involved in the count of an attempt to provide the terrorist group ISIS with financial support. The young man was allegedly ordered by Al-Talebi to send two packages of $3,000 all the way to Pakistan. It was also claimed by the witness that the alleged ISIS-Funder arranged for the youth to turnover $9,000 for ISIS Supporters overseas. According to the prosecutors, the young man did not continue the monetary transaction due to the amount of fees required by the bank. In exchange for the testimony of the youth against Al-Talebi and Azari, the man was offered his judicial immunity in his cases. In addition, the lawyer of Al-Talebi, Peter O’Brien, questioned the prosecution’s witness on Friday and stated that the young man’s claims and evidence were “uncorroborated.” O’Brien adds that the youth was involving others in his self-interest for protection and immunity against the cases he is also included in. However, magistrate Peter Miszalski proclaimed that the status of the youth witness was a matter to be decided by the jury and judge. Miszalski also added that: “I think it is naive for those sending money to think that they can do so anonymously.” While the witness was being cross-examined by O’Brien, fellow alleged ISIS-Funder, Azari, pleaded that he was guilty for the charge of an...
Words: 313 - Pages: 2
...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
