Miranda Case Study

Ernesto Miranda, a mexican immigrant living in the United States, was arrested by officers Carroll Cooley and Wilfred Young at Miranda's home in Phoenix, AZ. He was put into custody and taken to a local police station. Miranda was put into police lineup and was identified by the witness, Lois Jameson. Following, Miranda was interrogated for two hours by two police officers with the Arizona police department, before making a written and signed confession of the crimes. This confession was presented at trial and Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on each count of kidnapping and rape. The Supreme Court of Arizona found that Miranda's constitutional rights weren't personally violated, but ruled that police officers are required to
Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. Ernesto Miranda, the first defendant, was arrested for kidnapping and rape. He confessed after two our of investigation by officers. The confession included that Miranda was given his Fifth Amendment rights prior to being arrested, which he was not. Michael Vignera, the second defendant, was being held on one count of robbery. He was interrogated for over eight hours, until he also confessed to his crimes. Likewise, Vignera had not been given his fifth amendment rights, either. The third defendant, Carl Westover, was being held on two counts of robbery. Westover was questioned for over 14 hours, but did not confess to the crimes until being handed over to FBI agents. Officers, for another time, did not give fifth amendment rights to the defendant. The fourth and last defendant, Roy Stewart, including members of his family, were arrested on suspicion of purse snatching. No evidence was shown that Stewart's family were any part of the snatching and were let go. Stewart confessed to the crimes after nine consecutive interrogations. In all four cases, officers failed to address the fifth amendment rights of the individuals being
He is quoted as stating, “It is "judicial" in its treatment of one case at a time, flexible in its ability to respond to the endless mutations of fact presented, and ever more familiar to the lower courts. Of course, strict certainty is not obtained in this developing process, but this is often so with constitutional principles, and disagreement is usually confined to that borderland of close cases where it matters least.” What Harlan is saying is that it's the court's job to have quick response to the constant fact changes that happen in the lower courts, and that things aren't seen as the final conclusion until they're completely argued