Preview

Miranda V. Arizona

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
649 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
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. The first court ruling where Miranda was found guilty to armed robbery was thrown out after his case was and brought up to the Supreme Court. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have informed them of their rights, which are now called Miranda Rights. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights while in custody, therefore any confessions he made could not be used against him in court. At the Supreme Court level, the conviction was overthrown because he was not informed of his right against self incrimination and his right to remain silent. The case was later re-tried without using his confessions in the trial. Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years for armed robbery. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping, he could not be prosecuted for it because there was not enough evidence to show he was the offender in those crimes once his confession was thrown out. Chief justice, Earl Warren established the


References: Case Brief of Miranda vs. Arizona 1966. (2010). Essortment Articles. Retrieved March 11, 2011, from http://www.essortment.com/case-brief-miranda-vs- arizona-1966-33397.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Arizona police took him to the police station and interrogated him for two hours. After the interrogation, Mr. Miranda had confessed to the crimes, and provided officers with a written confession. Language at the top of the written confession stated that the confession was given freely and voluntarily without any threats or promises. In addition, the language stated that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights. However, Mr. Miranda was not advised that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation. Subsequently, the statement was entered into evidence at trial, and Mr. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to prison.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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
  • Good Essays

    When Miranda's case went to trial, the prosecution used the written confession as evidence against him. The defense objected, asking for the evidence to be suppressed. However, the judge allowed the confession to be admitted. Miranda was convicted of all counts, which consisted of kidnapping and rape. On each count he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years, with the sentences running concurrently. On Miranda's first appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that his rights had not been violated by the admission of the confession, and therefore affirmed the conviction. The basis for the decision was connected to the fact that Miranda never specifically requested council.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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
  • Good Essays

    The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright, 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They cannot try to pry information out of someone if they have not been read their rights or if they ask for their attorney. It is a different story though is someone just starts rambling on when they are not asked. “Suspects can reinitiate an interrogation by coming forward and indicating to police they wish to talk and are willing to waive their Miranda rights. If there is a break in detention, the police may reinitiate the interrogation after fourteen days” (Wright, 2013).…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 2098 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Mіrаndа vs. Arizona was а case that consіdеrеd the rights of the dеfеndаnts in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Indіvіduаl rights did not change with the Mіrаndа decision; however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless а suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in а court of law (Mіrаndа v. Arizona, 1966). The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow а code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them.…

    • 2098 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda was guilty of kidnapping as well as rape; he was punished twenty to thirty years in prison for each. The Miranda v. Arizona appealed but, the Supreme Court of Arizona maintain that Miranda’s Constitutional Rights existed in achieving the confession. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction but was retried and convicted, without the confession, by the State of Arizona.…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    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.…

    • 640 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which passed 5–4. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.…

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ohio (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The ruling of Mapp v. Ohio determined that all evidence that is obtained by search and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is admissible in a criminal trial in a state court overruling Wolf v. Colorado, which holds the contrary. The Exclusionary Rule applied not only to the Fourth Amendments protections against search and seizures, but also to the Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona brought the Fifth Amendment into the exclusionary rule and found that if a police fails to inform a suspect of their right to remain silent (read their Miranda Rights), if the suspect confesses, their confession was unlawfully collected and cannot be used as evidence in court. Some of the other cases regarding the good-faith exclusion of the Exclusionary Rule are Arizona v. Evans (1995), Davis v. US (2011) and Herring v. US.…

    • 578 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V

    • 1425 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old girl by Phoenix Police Department. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of interrogation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, was identified in a police lineup by a woman, who accused him of kidnapping and raping her. Miranda was arrested and questioned by the police for two hours until he confessed to the crimes. During the interrogation, police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as evidence against Miranda, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. However, at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel. Prior to being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he had already given orally, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, nor was he informed that his statements during the interrogation would be used against him.…

    • 1425 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona

    • 1588 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona was not the first case where the officers did not let the defendant know about their counsel rights. For example, on December 19, 1963, Miss Lucile O. Mitchell was beaten and robbed; she was found on her porch dead. Prior to this case (People v. Stewart), the local officers have been investigating a series of robberies that were occurring in the area, the officers suspected that there could be a connection with all the robberies. One of the previous victims was carrying checks with her and those checks were cashed. The officers interviewed the owner of the market where the checks were cashed, the owner told them about Mr. Stewart. Without any proved that Mr. Stewart was the one committing the robberies, he was interrogated for a couple of days without telling him about his rights to a counsel. In one of the interrogations the defendant confessed that he was the one who robbed Miss Mitchell but did not intend to kill her. His confession was used as evidence against him, even though the defendant stated that he gave his statement involuntary. Nothing in the records stated if the defendant was informed prior to his confession of his counsel rights and to remain silent. On the appeal, the argument was that the officers had not effectively informed the defendant of his counsel rights or of his…

    • 1588 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    How did it get its name Miranda from? Here a little history where the Miranda Rights got started. The Miranda Rights came from the Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona, in 1966. When Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights, but was arrested, taken to the police station. Miranda was detained in a segregated interrogation room for two hours. Was not informed about his right to receive counsel after interrogating, Arizona law enforcement had written a statement of Miranda, confession of the crime. The confession also contained a full disclaimer stating that Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights, when in fact, his legal counsel argued, he did not know. Eventually the court overturned Miranda conviction because Miranda was not formally informed of his legal right as a suspect. This allowed taking back his statement of confession. Ultimately, mandates the U.S law enforcement has inform citizens of their right to due process. This is how the Miranda Rights gets its name and was enforced throughout the United States. Because the Supreme Court would not want a case like this…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Right to Remain Silent

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Supreme Court issued the Miranda decision in 1966, requiring police to inform any and all criminal suspects of their right to remain silent and to converse with a lawyer (Cornell Law School University. 1995-2004). While it is intended to prevent police misconduct, the Miranda warning constraint can be taken to boundaries that can contaminate police work and threaten just…

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays