Preview

Miranda Law

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1709 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Miranda Law
The Miranda Law

HIS 303

Prof. Dorey

January 6, 2011

On March 13, 1963, in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, a man with a past criminal record, was arrested at Arizona in his home. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and brought into custody by the police and brought to the Phoenix police station. He was suspected and then later identified as the person who stole $8.00 from a Phoenix, Arizona bank worker. Ernesto Miranda was questioned for two hours by police, then confessed to the robbery, unexpectedly he also confessed to kidnapping and raping an 18 year old girl 11 days earlier. He had signed the two written confessions. During the arrest and questioning, Miranda was never told he had the right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and to be protected against self-incrimination.
On June 19, 1963, Miranda was trialed in court for the robbery charges from Barbara Roe, the women who accused him of the robbery. His lawyer, Alvin Moore, argued that Miranda was mentally ill, hoping to gain his client freedom. Two doctors examined Miranda and conclude that he was not mentally ill. They said, “Miranda was aware of the nature and quality of his acts and he was aware that what he did was wrong.” Miranda’s mentally ill claim was dropped.
During the trial on June 19th, Carroll Cooley, the officer who questioned Miranda had admitted that he did not tell Miranda that he was allowed an attorney at the time, and that anything he said could be used against him in court. Alvin Moore believed the confession’s of Miranda were not voluntary and that the confessions should be dismissed. The judge disagreed, and found Miranda guilty on the robbery charges.
They next day, on June 20,1963, was Miranda’s kidnapping and rape trail. Once again Alvin Moore asked for the confessions to be dismissed as evidence because it was a violation of Miranda’s constitutional rights, to be questioned without the knowledge of being granted an attorney and for him to know his rights. The judge



Bibliography: * Kermit Hall, John J. Patrick, Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, Annenberg Public Policy Center. The Pursuit of Justice: Supreme Court Decisions That Shaped America. Oxford University Press US, 2006. * Michael Burgan, Miranda V. Arizona: The Rights of the Accused. Compass Point Books, 2006. * G. S. Prentzas, Miranda Rights: Protecting the Rights of the Accused. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2005. * http://www.thecapras.org/mcapra/miranda/rights.html#MirandaVsArizona * http://law.jrank.org/pages/6563/Escobedo-v-Illinois.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    In the Escobedo case the defendant was found guilty after admitting to the crime. Escobedo asked for a lawyer on several occasions and officers denied allowing him to speak to his lawyer and prevent his lawyer form speaking to him. Following this case the states required police to advise individuals who have been arrest for a felony that they have the right to counsel and silence. Following the Escobedo case the Supreme Court reversed an Arizona court conviction know as the Miranda v. Arizona case. The Miranda v. Arizona case was a case of a 23-year-old man who was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Officers arrested Miranda and transported him to the police station for questioning on the kidnapping and rape and after two hours of questioning…

    • 163 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phoenix, Arizona in 1963, Ernesto Miranda was captured after a woman recognized him in a police lineup. He was indicted assaulting and kidnapping and addressed for two hours while in care of police. The officers that addressed him didn't educate him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-implication furthermore of his Sixth Amendment right to the help of a lawyer. Subsequently, Miranda admitted in doing the wrongdoings with which he was sentenced. His announcement had an affirmation that he knew of his privilege against self-implication. At his trial, the indictment utilized his admission to get a conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in jail on every check.…

    • 263 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    While in custody, Miranda was interrogated by police for hours until he signed a written confession. Not once during the interrogation was Miranda informed of his rights to counsel or to remain silent. During the trial his court appointed attorney objected to the admission of the statement on the grounds that Miranda was not informed of his rights. Given the amount of evidence, including the confession itself, the court overruled the objection. After being found guilty and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for his crimes, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Due to the fact that Miranda failed to specifically request an attorney, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The case was then forwarded to the Supreme Court along with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v.…

    • 2261 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    In the Miranda vs Arizona case Miranda established that the police are required to inform arrested persons that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. The case involved a claim by the plaintiff that the state of Arizona, by obtaining a confession from him without having informed him of his right to have a lawyer present, had violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment regarding self incrimination. Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape and was interrogated for a long period of time. This interrogation resulted in a signed confession. At court Miranda lawyer argued that the confession was obtained from a person who does not understand their rights. The court agreed that a person should be informed of their rights and understand them before the police…

    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Defendant Michael Meyers files this motion to suppress statements made, during custodial interrogation, in violation of Miranda and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This motion is based on the following: Meyers was detained and subject to custodial interrogation at the staircase without Miranda advisement; officers did not secure a valid waiver of Miranda prior to Meyers’ custodial interrogation at the police department; and the illegality of Meyers’ Fourth Amendment violation against unreasonable search and seizures is insufficient to purge the taint of his initial unlawful detention. Accordingly, statements stemming thereof in are the fruit of the poisons tree and must be suppressed.…

    • 103 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    "You have the right to remain silent." Those words have been popularized in television and movies, and many people recognize them as the opening of the Miranda rights. But what those rights are, and what results when police officers fail to read them to criminal suspects, are topics that are frequently misunderstood. Before Miranda, the right against self-incrimination was never self-executing and always had to be invoked by the suspect. This invocation is what is commonly referred to as ‘pleading the Fifth.' In Miranda, the Supreme Court shifted this burden to the police, and required them to specifically advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during questioning. The Court ruled that all statements or confessions made in the absence of the warnings are inherently involuntary and coerced, and hence inadmissible in court.…

    • 562 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Justice Douglas agrees with the arguments of Miranda, he was never notified of his rights ever even if there was a typed statement at the top it does not justify Miranda was read his rights. Although, the minority party consisting of Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart has a different opinion stating, “In two of the three cases coming from state courts, Miranda v. Arizona (No. 759) and Vignera v. New York (No. 760), the confessions were held admissible and no other errors worth comment are alleged by petitioners. I would affirm in these two cases.” (Miranda v. Arizona 1966) Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart agree with the decisions of both courts on their rulings of the Miranda case that there was no wrong doing and Miranda was aware of his rights when he sign the confession; therefore the confession is valid and can be used against Miranda. However, the others included in the majority party (Chief Justice Warren, Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas) who disagree with the idea of the minority party of affirming the case. On June 13, 1966 the Supreme Court ruled over the court case Miranda v. Arizona in favor of Miranda by a five to four vote stating that, “Miranda v. Arizona (1966)… required that custodial suspects be apprised of their Constitutional rights against self-incrimination.”( Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Robinson, E. V., Steadham, J. A., & Drogin, E. Y. 2013,…

    • 1651 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In the Supreme Court, case Miranda v. Arizona involved an individual by the name of Ernesto Miranda and the state of Arizona. Ernesto Miranda who was accused of kidnapping and raping women was arrested by police and questioned for about two hours until policed obtain a written statement confession to the crimes (Miranda v. Arizona). In trial, the police officers admitted they did not notifying Miranda of his right to have an attorney present when being questioned about the chargers; however, Miranda was convicted by the Arizona state court and sentenced to prison. Miranda’s attorney appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Arizona, but the court upheld the state’s decision stating that “Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel” (Miranda v. Arizona).…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    After Miranda was arrested at his house after being accused of kidnapping and rape, he was taken to the police station where multiple police officers questioned him.…

    • 64 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Second, Michael Vignera was arrested for mugging. Mr. Vignera told the police officers that he was guilty after he was arrested. The police detained Mr. Vignera for eight hours in detention. Afterwards, he was assigned to a district attorney. Mr. Vignera. There was no proof…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Miranda Warnings

    • 1790 Words
    • 8 Pages

    “You are going to prison”, is the statement Ernesto Miranda probably heard as he was arrested by police from the comfort of his home, in 1963, without warning or being advised of his Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda, 22 years old, was charged with raping an 18-year-old female. Subsequently, he was brought to a police department station where he was placed into an interrogation room isolated from everyone. After two grueling hours of questioning; Miranda was feeling dazed, confused and exhausted, Miranda felt forced to sign a confession statement given to him by detective claiming that Miranda did so without duress. Further stating, “Ernesto fully comprehended the charges made against him”. A technique not uncommon during…

    • 1790 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1966 the Miranda Rights were created from the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda V. Arizona. When Ernesto Miranda was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery he was not informed of his rights before policy interrogated him. The police proceeded with a two hour interrogation in which Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, with no counsel being present. As the trial progressed the prosecution’s case was based solely on his confession. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda then appealed claiming that the police unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed and upheld the conviction. Then Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that prosecution could not use Miranda’s confession as evidence in a trial because the policy did not inform him of his right to an attorney. From all of this the Court made statements that police are required to read the Miranda Rights to anyone who is being detained and interrogated. (A. McBride, 2006)…

    • 585 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    However, he had not been truly informed of his right to counsel, the right to remain silent, and the fact that his statement could be used against him. He was subsequently convicted of rape and kidnapping. He later filed an appeal stating that his confession was not voluntary and should not have been used against him. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona ruled that no confession could be admissible under the 5th amendment self-incrimination clause and the 6th amendment right to attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and waived them. It became a common law to state the Miranda Warnings before questioning somebody. It was a law before, but it wasn’t enforced until after 1966, which is significant to the case as Miranda had rights, but he wasn’t aware of all of them, particularly the ones that are now the Miranda Rights and the Miranda Warnings. The Miranda Warnings were thought to be a temporary idea, however it has lasted for more than half a century. Miranda v. Arizona was not the…

    • 1400 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Abuse In Interrogations

    • 439 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Miranda laws, and Massiah laws, were put in place to help people being interrogated. These laws assure that their rights are not violated so the police do not overstep their boundaries in an interrogation. They clearly outline what is appropriate to do in an interrogation and what will happen if these rights are violated. Eve Primus clarifies what the Miranda laws, and Massiah laws did to protect the public. “Miranda and Massiah supplied more definite rules, and courts relied on them to do the heavy lifting in regulating police interrogation practices” (Primus 3). Although these laws helped to outline what is appropriate during an interrogation, time is an element that has lead these laws into decay. Currently the only law being implemented to protect anyone during an interrogation is the voluntariness test. Brandon Garrett describes the voluntariness test as, “forgiving and vague, case-by-case standard with no definite shape that, in practice, almost always resulted in the admission of suspects’ confessions”(Primus…

    • 439 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays