Preview

Miranda Warning

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1682 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Miranda Warning
Title: Miranda Warning Name: Peta-Gaye Walker Virginia Collage Time spent: 2 days

Abstract

Researching previous cases on a Miranda warning is one of the best ways to garner information as to the ways and procedures in how an officer goes about giving this warning. The main cases that will layout the foundation of this research is the original case of Miranda v. Arizona. In order to understand the main idea of what is the Miranda warning and how it is done, as well as the issues surrounding this warning then, one must study where it originated. During research it is concluded that such warning cannot be given without a person being in custody. Several informal talks with past law professors was done in attempt to prove whether or not the officer should have given Randy his rights prior to his confession of the bank robbery. During this several questions were addressed, questions such as, by law should a Miranda warning be given upon confession? Was randy in police custody at the time of the confession and when must this warning be given. The confession of randy cannot be ignored therefore some investigation must be done concerning the confession of the robbery. The elements of a bank robbery were researched as to come to a decision about the alleged criminal position of Randy. After which one must consider, was Randay’s alleged robbery an actual crime, what constitutes a crime? If the investigation of Randy’s confession is proven to be true, should he be then formally arrested by the officers? If the confessions are proven to be true then the officer should then give him the Miranda warning.

Introduction I confess I robbed the bank, should I be held in custody, should I be given a Miranda warning? A Miranda warning is given to a suspect who is formally arrested to

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Summary

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages

    There were four different cases that were addressed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. These cases involve custodial interrogations and in each of these cases, the defendant was cut off from the outside world while they were being interrogated in a room by the police officers, detectives, as well as prosecuting attorneys. In the four cases, not even one of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights during the interrogation process. Furthermore, the questioning done in all the cases elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Reynold Lancaster discussed how the Miranda warning is used by police officers and other law enforcements when they arrest a person of interest. The Miranda warning allows the officers…

    • 326 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages

    * The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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.…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. The police took him into custody, and transported him to a Phoenix police station. The witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then lead to the interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to question him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the right to an attorney to be present during the questioning. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Located on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Arizona made requirements that the law had to follow, which stated law enforcement officials must follow protocol before questioning suspect in custody. “These rules specified that a suspect must be read the “Miranda warning,” now famous from police shows on television, and then must be asked whether he agrees to “waive” those rights. If the suspect declines, the police are required to stop all questioning. Even if the suspect waives his rights, at any time during an interrogation he can halt the process by retracting the waiver or asking for a lawyer. From that point on, the police are not allowed even to suggest that the suspect reconsider” ("National Center for Policy Analysis", 1996). Since the requirements were made and law enforcement has to abide by the facts of the impact, they have found that it is more complicated to get the offenders to admit to wrong doing with a confession. After the decision of the Miranda rights, various states in the US had a percentage drop of individuals whom actually confessed. With the states having so many individuals accused of a crime and the Miranda rule taking effect, they found that it makes it complex to solve the crime at hand. Since that present time the rates of solving crimes have drastically changed and have concurrently stayed that way from that time to current. Knowingly not be able to solve as many violent or property crimes, less convictions have become a tough issue. The effects of the…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Arizona police took him to the police station and interrogated him for two hours. After the interrogation, Mr. Miranda had confessed to the crimes, and provided officers with a written confession. Language at the top of the written confession stated that the confession was given freely and voluntarily without any threats or promises. In addition, the language stated that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights. However, Mr. Miranda was not advised that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation. Subsequently, the statement was entered into evidence at trial, and Mr. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to prison.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Warning: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Cj227 Unit 4 Project

    • 943 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Since John was in custody, what are the procedural steps the police were required to take once John began to incriminate himself? The police have no obligation to stop John Doe from making any statements. “Excited Utterance” made by a defendant before being questioned are admissible as statements given under Miranda advisement. Once the police begin to question John Doe regarding the theft, then they are required to read or provide Mr. Doe with his Miranda Warnings. Miranda rights (Miranda rule, Miranda warning) n. the requirement set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Alabama (1966) that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: "the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used in court against" him/her. Further, if the accused person confesses to the authorities, the prosecution must prove to the judge that the defendant was informed of them and knowingly waived those rights, before the confession can be introduced in the defendant's criminal trial. The warnings are known as "Miranda Rights" or just "rights." The Miranda rule supposedly prevents self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Sometimes there is a question of admissibility of answers to questions made by the defendant before he/she was considered a prime suspect, raising a factual issue as to what is a prime suspect and when does a person become such a suspect?…

    • 943 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Arizona vs Miranda

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Early in 1963, a 17 years old woman was kidnapped and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigated the case, and soon found and arrested a poor, and mentally disturbed man. The name of this man was Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was 23 years old when he was arrested. On March 13, 1963, Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and the rape. After 2 police officers interrogated him for 2 hours, he signed a confession to the rape charge. The form he signed included the following statement:…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright, 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They cannot try to pry information out of someone if they have not been read their rights or if they ask for their attorney. It is a different story though is someone just starts rambling on when they are not asked. “Suspects can reinitiate an interrogation by coming forward and indicating to police they wish to talk and are willing to waive their Miranda rights. If there is a break in detention, the police may reinitiate the interrogation after fourteen days” (Wright, 2013).…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 2098 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Mіrаndа vs. Arizona was а case that consіdеrеd the rights of the dеfеndаnts in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Indіvіduаl rights did not change with the Mіrаndа decision; however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless а suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in а court of law (Mіrаndа v. Arizona, 1966). The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow а code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them.…

    • 2098 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful 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

    Some of the judges were not pleased with the ruling, they stated that Miranda’s written statement confessing to the crimes should not be completely ruled out and not used as evidence in the case in court. Justice Tom C. Clark claimed in his dissenting opinion, “the majority’s opinion created an unnecessary strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties” (Miranda v. Arizona). The judges that ruled in favor of Maranda stated that an individual who is being persecuted under the law should indeed know their rights, a defendant must be made aware of their right to remain silent prior to any interrogation, and they have the right for an attorney to be present during the interrogation. This case is important because it created the Miranda warning as a preventative criminal procedure to ensure that when criminals who are being prosecuted they are made aware that their fifth amendment is not being violated and that anything they say will be used against them in a court of…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. At trial, the prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics