Miranda Vs Arizona

Miranda Rights
The United States has come a long way since the Constitution was created, and it has learned from the mistakes done. There has been a lot of cases where people did not have a fair trial and people has been sentenced unfairly. After serious mistakes, many bills have developed so the incident does not happen again. Unfortunately, people have to go through the worse so other people can benefit. After the case of Miranda v. Arizona, many people have benefit from it. Society as a whole has become better, and police officers now tell everyone their rights. We have come with the conclusion that everyone has the right to know their legal rights either by self-interest or because it is morally right.
Miranda v. Arizona
The main purpose
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
Williams (1977). In this case, however, the defendant had knowledge of his rights and requested them at the time of his arrest. In Brewer v. Williams, the defendant was taken into custody for abducting a ten-year-old girl in Des Moines, Iowa. The defendant was arrested in Davenport. The defendant had two attorneys one in Des Moines and one in Davenport; both advised the defendant to remain silent on his transfer to Des Moines. The attorney was denied his request to ride with the defendant, but they got an agreement from the court that the defendant was not going to be questioned during his transfer. The officers riding with the defendant knew that the defendant was a former mental patient and religious. The officers engaged with the defendant several conversations talking about religion and how the girl and her family deserved a Christian burial. The officers told the defendant that he knew the body was between Des Moines and Davenport. The officers wanted to play with his emotions, so he would confess where the body was. Finally, the officers were able to get the defendant to confess and led them to the girl’s body. At the trial, the body of the victim along with his confession during the transfer to Des Moines was attended to be used as evidence against him. The court denied the evidence, because his attorney was not present during the time of the confession, which violated his rights (Fifth Amendment,