Miranda Vs Arizona Supreme Court Case

Throughout the years there has been many cases in the United States that have been controversial. Although, there are only a select few of those cases that have been able to reach the top court, the Supreme Court. Even then not all of the cases that reached Supreme Court gained the status of being a landmark Supreme Court case. Each of these cases that gained the status of a landmark Supreme Court case was by embedding some type of societal impact that lasts to the United States such as, Miranda v. Arizona. In order for a case to be defined as a landmark Supreme Court case it must first reach the supreme court of the United States, then the case must be decided on by the Supreme Court, the cases must then be studied by others of its impacts
and changes on the nation and the nations society as a whole, and if the case has caused changes and a societal impact that will have a lasting effect on the nation (such as rules and polices) then the case can be described as a landmark supreme court case. Societal impact can be defined as having an effect on or the change rules, policies, ideas, and laws of nation causing a nation and its people to adjust. The case of Miranda v. Arizona all started on the date march 3, 1963, when a young eighteen year old girl was kidnapped and raped near Phoenix, Arizona. The police were on the search for the individual who was responsible for this crime for ten days until on the morning of March 13, they found a man named Ernest A. Miranda. Miranda was a young twenty three year old Hispanic man who wasn’t exactly the best educated person out there. Miranda was taken back to the police station in phoenix, Arizona where he was identified in a lineup by the young women who was kidnapped and raped. After being identified two police officers had escorted Miranda to interrogation room number two around eleven thirty am. In this interrogation room the two police failed to notify Miranda of his rights, but still questioned Miranda of the crime. Miranda was refusing that he committed the crimes of kidnapping and rape until about two hours of interrogation by the two police officers, finally getting the confession they were hoping to get out of Miranda. The confession was in Miranda’s hand writing explaining in detail of the crime he had committed on March 3, 1963. At the very top of Miranda confession statement was his signature below a typed statement stating that the statement was given without threats, promises, or immunity; the statement also stated, "With full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me .”(Miranda v. Arizona 1966) With the statement Miranda was incarcerated until his trial. Miranda v.
Arizona case reached its first court two weeks after Ernesto Miranda was arrested. In the court Miranda had asked the court for a counsel but was denied the counsel .Miranda was given a lawyer who tried to object the use of Miranda’s confession but he was over ruled. “Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.” (Miranda v. Arizona 1966) Miranda was not satisfied with the decision, so he decided that he would appeal to the Supreme Court of Arizona. The supreme court of Arizona reviewed Ernesto A. Miranda’s plea and case, but once again, “On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession and affirmed the conviction (Mr. Chief Justice Warren).” Miranda had been denied again by the state court this time ruling in favor that there was no errors committed in the decision of the case. Still though Miranda was adamant that he was not given the rights he deserved and stated he should have. Miranda at last appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, where they accepted to view his case know as Miranda v. Arizona along with three other cases. Majority leader chief justice Warren delivered his opinion of the court, in his opinion he states how Mr. Justice Douglas
believes,
“From the testimony of the officers and by the admission of respondent, it is clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. Without these warnings the statements were inadmissible. The mere fact that he signed a statement which contained a typed-in clause stating that he had "full knowledge" of his "legal rights" does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights.” ( Miranda v. Arizona 1966)
Mr.
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,
p.397) The decision in Miranda v. Arizona caused many societal impacts and changes when comes to people’s rights and police enforcement strategies and procedures. It first starts with,
“Miranda creates “a due process notice requirement within the Fifth Amendment privilege.”… For many years prior to Miranda, the argument that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to police interrogation went as follows: because police are not granted legal authority to compel incriminating statements from suspects, “there is nothing to counteract, there is no legal obligation to which a privilege can apply, and hence the police can elicit statements from suspects who are likely to assume or be led to believe there are legal (or extralegal) sanctions for contumacy (Tracy Maclin 2015, p. 1407 & 1409).”
The Miranda v. Arizona case has created a more strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment when it comes to the police enforcement and their work in interrogations on individuals. Police now take more into consideration and follow the following three steps when they apprehend someone and want to question them,
“(a) Before he is interrogated, a person suspected of a criminal offense must be warned of his constitutional rights to silence and counsel; (b) counsel, including appointed counsel if necessary, must be made available during interrogation; and (c) the suspect may waive both counsel and his right to remain silent by an explicit statement to that effect after warning.” (Elsen, S. H., & Rosett, A.1967, p.646)
The following process has made it much more difficult for authorities to get a confession out of suspects. Many people are now aware of their rights and process the police must take causing now than ever more people to refuse to cooperate with the police making it more difficult for prosecutors to win a case and convict the suspect. With the difficulty that Miranda has imposed on police have been forced to come up with alternative methods around Miranda without violating it. Such as,
“The Court has permitted the police to put an undercover agent in a cell and question an inmate without providing the quite relevant information that the "cell mate" is an agent… The Court has also held that a consent search is constitutional even if the suspect does not know that he has the right to refuse consent.” (Thomas, G. C., & Leo, R. A.2002, p.212)
Law enforcement now work closely to interpret the Fifth Amendment in order to try and get more confessions without breaking people’s rights and forcing another case like Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda v. Arizona has generated a numerous amount of societal effects over the years causing society to evolve starting with a strict interpretation of the laws and amendments, to citizens being more aware of their rights and being less cooperative with police refusing to give up their rights, and to the police breaking down the laws and amendments to bypass them get the confessions or what they need out of the suspect without breaking the laws and amendments. In conclusion, the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona solidifies its name as a Landmark Supreme Court case due to the long lasting effect the case has had on America and its people till this day. The case Miranda v. Arizona has helped establish the rights of people in the legal system and help notify the people of their rights. Overall, Miranda v. Arizona has done all good and been beneficial for the people of America protecting and providing resources in areas such as the court room and in interrogations.