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)
2. I definitely feel like the Miranda Warning is still a valid concept. I feel like reminds the suspect that they still have rights and they are still innocent until proven guilty. Being a suspect of any crime is probably very scary and can be overwhelming with emotions.
Being cautious and prepared is key for interrogating suspects. The interrogation location should be free from distractions or interruptions. The interrogation room should be well lit and secure. It's important that the officer not ask close ended questions. Asking closed ended questions will lead to short yes or no responses. Asking open ended questions will lead to a broader response and more information will likely come out. Taking notes and recording the interrogation is also key. Although there are many types of interrogation techniques, the officers should discuss the role they will be playing before hand. They can decide which type of interrogation technique will bring out the best results. -WRITTEN AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION-METHODS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT By Harvey Wallace and Cliff Roberson(CHAPTER 9 PAGES 139-145)
4. Ernesto Miranda was retried again and found guilty based on witness testimony. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. In 1972, Miranda was paroled and began making a living by autographing police officers "miranda cards". On January 31, 1976 he stabbed to death in a bar during an