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
Words: 589 - Pages: 3
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
Words: 1127 - Pages: 5
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
Words: 510 - Pages: 3
landmark court case, Miranda V. Arizona, was one of the identifying starts of others questioning government authorities and citizen’s constitutional rights. In Miranda V. Arizona, on March 13, 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was apprehended due to, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.
Words: 506 - Pages: 3
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
Words: 253 - Pages: 2
Court Case Analysis Team A - CJA/364 Instructor: Timijanel Odom 05/20/2015 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
Words: 869 - Pages: 4
Miranda v. Arizona: Half a Century Later by: September 2nd, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION A. Executive Summary – In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated the case Miranda v. Arizona the most important aspect of due process and criminal procedure ever affecting law enforcement and prosecutorial conduct of an investigation. The main issues in this case were: * The admissibility of a defendant’s statements if such statements were made while the defendant was held in police custody or deprived
Words: 1278 - Pages: 6
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
Words: 1245 - Pages: 5
view of the Warren Court was that states are a hindrance in the enhancement of a just nation. In the sphere of criminal procedure and law enforcement, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court was associated with four chief cases: Terry v Ohio (1968), Miranda v Arizona (1966), Gideon v Wainwright (1963), and Mapp v Ohio (1961). These four cases establish the foundation for the application of the principle referred to as the ‘exclusionary rule’ and the major basis for Warren Court critics. The Warren Court established
Words: 2153 - Pages: 9
apprehended some later. The choice to commit crime is up to each of us and is really the start of the entire process. Every thing that comes after is just a response to this act. The next step after apprehending a suspect is to read this person their Miranda rights. This is very important as a suspect could be set, free later on at trial if this does not happen. Law Enforcment officers at any level must verbally inform an individual of their rights. These are the right to remain silent, warning that any
Words: 2201 - Pages: 9
