Preview

Is Fast Food the New Tobacco?

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
640 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Is Fast Food the New Tobacco?
Michael D. Mangiapili
Principles of Investigation
Professor Barnes
9/24/13
Home Work Chapter 6
Davis V. United States 1994 In 1994, U.S. Navy sailor Davis decided to have a little game of pool. To make this game interesting he and his opponent decided to wager $30.00. After the game this person decided he wasn’t going to pay Davis the money that was owed to him. Davis decides to pick up a cue stick and beat this man to death. The pool hall only allowed you to take home your own cue, Davis just so happened to own two. Naval investigators found a bloody pool stick in Davis’ possession and several people stated that they heard Davis confess to murdering this man. Davis was taken into custody and read his Miranda rights. During the interrogation Davis confessed and made an ambiguous statement, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” The investigator then asked him if he wanted a lawyer and Davis stated, “No”. Davis’ lawyer later argued that Davis was denied the right to an attorney. The Supreme Court ended up deciding that an ambiguous and unclear request for a lawyer does not establish the right. The request for a lawyer must be unambiguous and clear.
Illinois V. Perkins 1990 In this case an undercover agent was placed in prison with a man who obviously committed a crime. Believing that the agent was a fellow inmate, the prisoner began to brag about his crimes and confessing to some he had gotten away with. When he was about to be charged with those crimes, he invoked his right to be read Miranda. This case ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court and the decision stood. The evidence was valid. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the reason Miranda was put into place was so that police wouldn’t coerce illegal involuntary confessions from suspects. If a prisoner believes that an undercover agent just so happened to be his cell mate, then the prisoner was not coerced into that confession. He voluntarily gave it. I personally agree with the decisions
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Brief in Irac Format
    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Brief in Irac Format

    In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Polygamist Marriages Internal Memorandum
    • 1347 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Polygamist Marriages Internal Memorandum

    Deborah Evans Met Aaron Conway and his wife Barb Conway five years ago as part of the religious sect Canyon County Family Society that has existed for 25 years with 120 members, which is part of the Mormon Church which strongly believes in polygamist marriages. Ms. Evans moved in with the Conway’s two years ago, in which time Mr. Conway and Ms. Evans began dating even though he has been married to his wife Barb for 10 years, and have five children together. In 2011Mr. Conway decided he wanted to be married to Deborah Evans as well for a second wife, as it is part of their religious beliefs to do and applied for a marriage license in canyon County, Utah. Mr. Conway and Ms. Evans then proceeded to the county clerk’s office and applied for their marriage license where they were denied, and informed at that point that polygamy in the state of Utah is not legal, and since Mr. Conway was already married, they could not get a marriage license. The Conway’s and Ms. Evans at this point sued the state of Utah in trial court for their right to practice polygamy based off of their religious beliefs. The trial court ruled against them, and denied the group the marriage license. At this point the Conway’s and Ms. Evans would like to appeal the trial court decision.…

    • 1347 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Marbury V. Madison: (1803) Judicial Review
    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Marbury V. Madison: (1803) Judicial Review

    Arizona: (1966) Rights in custody Ernesto Miranda a man who had not completed the ninth grade was arrested at his home in Arizona and identified as a suspect ina rape-kidnapping case. When he was questioned about the crime Miranda maintained he was innocent, but after two hours of interrogation he signed a confession. At the trial the confession was admitted as evidence and the court found Miranda guilty. The police acknowledged that Miranda had not been made aware. of his rights during the process nor had he had access to legal counsel. While the Miranda confession was given with relatively little pressure it still violated the constitutional requirements that governed such procedures. Inthis case, the Warren court ruled that the accused must be made aware of his or her rights from the…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study
    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study

    The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case, the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly, this letter stated that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. From the evidence found, Miranda was sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. From here the Supreme Court stated that, “...Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession…” (Miranda V Arizona).…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study
    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of Miranda v. Arizona set a precedence on how future suspects would be interrogated. It makes complete sense to advise a person that is being interrogated that he or she has a right to remain silent during interrogation and that he or she has the right to have counsel present during an interrogation. It's also important that the suspect be fully aware and full understand his or her rights before the interrogation begins. -WRITTEN AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION-METHODS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT By Harvey Wallace and Cliff Roberson(CHAPTER 9 PAGE 136)…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Best Essays

    Us History Reagan, H.W Bush, Clinton, Reaganomics
    • 3670 Words
    • 15 Pages

    Us History Reagan, H.W Bush, Clinton, Reaganomics

    "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke." Oyez. The Oyez Project, 2011. Web. 12 Apr 2012.…

    • 3670 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Best Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966
    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark of a decision to the United States Supreme Court, in which this was passed because it had four out of five agreeing. The Court held both exculpatory and inculpatory statements in which was made in response to interrogation by the person who is in the custody of the police who will be used in a trial only if the prosecution is able to show that the accused was informed of their right to consult with a lawyer before and even during any questioning and have the right against…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona
    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    miranda v. arizona

    Case Background: A Mexican immigrant residing in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, was identified to be a suspect in the line-up of a woman who accused him of rape and kidnapping. Police then arrested and interrogated Miranda. It took up to at least two hours of interrogation by police until Miranda the confessed to the crimes. The confession was written. During the two hours of interrogation, police did not once mention Miranda’s neither Fifth Amendment Protection against self-incrimination nor his Sixth amendment right to have the right to an attorney. After Miranda’s confession the case was then taken to trial hosted by Arizona state court an prosecutors used the oral and written confession as evidence against Miranda. Miranda was then found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on each count. The conviction was then upheld due to the fact the Miranda’s attorney appealed to Arizona’s Supreme Court which then led to the case being appealed to the United States Supreme Court which also connected the case with four other similar ones. The court later came to an agreement that it is mandatory that the police have the role of protecting the rights of the accused suspect guaranteed by the…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper
    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

    What is miranda v. arizona? Do the miranda rights come to mind when you hear miranda v. arizona? Perhaps it does the Miranda rights came to be in 1963 when a man named ernesto miranda was accused of sexual assault towards a girl the case made it all way to the supreme court the case labeled as miranda v. arizona and ernesto was founded guilty of both kidnapping and sexual assault and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison he later then claimed the police did not read him his rights and because he wasn't given the right to remain silence his rights were violated and the case was reviewed again in 1966 because the police had failed to inform Miranda of his right to an attorney. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Arizona vs Miranda
    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Arizona vs Miranda

    Miranda was not given a full and effective warning of his rights. He was not told of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Miranda was found guilty of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. During the prosecution, Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. In the end of 1966, The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first informs Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court of Arizona detailed the principles governing police interrogation. Arizona ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    John Adams Supreme Court Case
    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages

    John Adams Supreme Court Case

    Miranda never knew he did not have to speak with the police was interrogated and confessed and was sentenced to jail. Later an attorney looked over the case and requested Judicial Review Claiming that Ernesto’s rights has been violated. In 1966 The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s Conviction, and ruled that if a person is going to be taken in as a suspect they must be informed that they do have a right to and attorney. The suspect also has to be informed that the do not have to speak. The supreme court also ruled that if the suspect is not informed of these right the evidence obtained before hand can not be used in court. These rights are now known as the Miranda rights.…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona
    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Janet Ainsworth
    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Janet Ainsworth

    In Janet Ainsworth’s article, “‘You have the right to remain silent…’ but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law,” she explores the linguistic complexities of legal language, specifically the usage of the Miranda Rights in interrogation.…

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Introduction to Legal Research, Unit 3 Case Briefs (with Kaplan University, Online)
    • 2827 Words
    • 12 Pages

    Introduction to Legal Research, Unit 3 Case Briefs (with Kaplan University, Online)

    On June 13th 2003, Patterson was walking through the common area of the University Park Mall ( the Mall) when she slipped and fell on a liquefied cheese substance, “which was like cheese whiz”. Due to the high volume of traffic, Patterson did not see the cheese substance prior to the fall, as she and her daughter passed through the mall that day. Patterson states she did not see anyone trying to avoid the cheese before she slipped nor did she notice anyone dropping it just prior to her fall. She states she did not notice anyone with cheese on their shoes or anyone who was tracking it with their feet.…

    • 2827 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More

Related Topics