Preview

Miranda V. Arizona

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
671 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Miranda V. Arizona
Case Brief
Miranda v. Arizona
Citation: 384 U.S. 436, 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution.
Synopsis of Rule of Law: Authorities of the Government must notify suspects of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest.
Facts: The Supreme Court of the United States consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. * 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. * The second Defendant, Michael Vignera, was arrested for robbery. Mr. Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest, and he was held in detention for eight hours before he made an admission to an assistant district attorney. There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.

* The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover, was arrested for two robberies. Mr. Westover was questioned over fourteen hours by local police, and then was handed to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, who were able to get signed confessions from Mr. Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr. Westover of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. * The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart, was arrested, along with members of his family (although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his family) for a series of purse snatches. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart was notified of his rights. After nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart



Cited: "Facts and Case Summary." United States Courts. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 June 2013. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Nix V. Williams Summary

    • 822 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Evidence has demonstrated that at the time of unconstitutional interrogation, a search was already in place for the victim, and the body would have inevitably been found. This means had there not be illegal conduct by the police officers, the fairness of the trial would have remained the…

    • 822 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good 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
  • Powerful Essays

    On August 6, Illinois police, who had surprised him (Scarpelli) and one Fred Kleckner Jr., in the course of the burglary of a house, apprehended Gerald Scarpelli. After being told of his constitutional rights, respondent admitted that he and Kleckner had broken into the house for stealing merchandise or money, although he now asserts that his statement was made under duress and…

    • 886 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the case of State v. Rounds, the defense challenges the conduct of Officer Oliver Towns and the evidence his conduct yielded. The defense wages their action on three major cases, all of which apply, but none in the way cited: Riley V. California, 573 U.S. ____ (2014), Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, (1963) and Carroll v United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).…

    • 1222 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Thomkins Research Paper

    • 201 Words
    • 1 Page

    On January 10, 2000, two people got shot on the outside of a shopping mall; one person was killed and another wounded. Thompkins was convicted of murder and firearms related charges in Michigan state trial court. Thompkins was arrested one year later, the police officers had him to read a written form with the Miranda Warnings and the officer read the rest of the form to Thompkins. The police officer asks Thompkins to sign the form to show that he understood his right and he refused. The officers interrogated Thompkins for nearly three hours, Thimpkins responses the police officers with “yes”, “no” or “I don’t know”. Thimpkins didn’t state that he wished to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to stay silent. Later, an officer asked Thompkins if…

    • 201 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory 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
  • Good Essays

    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is the duty of law enforcement officers to conduct legal searches and seizures. An illegal search or seizure violates a person's rights and may lead to adverse consequences for the officer who engaged in the illegality. This paper covers a simulated case of Minnesota vs. Ronald Riff. The prosecution witness sheets are used to gathering information for Officer Shield to obtain a warrant to search the home of Ronald Riff, a suspect in the burglary of Marquette's Market.…

    • 787 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, during the 1960’s. Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him in a police lineup. He was charged with rape and kidnapping and was interrogated for two hours while in police custody. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.…

    • 622 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    However, when Miranda was arrested he was not told his rights that are stated in amendment number five. On appeal, Miranda's lawyers pointed out that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, he was not told that everything that he said could be used against him. In the end of 1966, The United State's Supreme Court gave support to the defendant side by only a 5 - 4 majority. The Supreme Court decision detailed the principles governing police interrogation. In addition, they…

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The fifth amendment's privilege not to answer, critics carp, insulates the guilty defendant from revealing his complicity.' While this is true, ironically it also can…

    • 4738 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In June of 1966, the outcome of the trial - Miranda v. Arizona declared that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when being placed under arrest, bringing about the creation of the Miranda Rights and forever altering all criminal arrests and police conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process.…

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona

    • 1588 Words
    • 7 Pages

    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…

    • 1588 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Miranda Warning

    • 1682 Words
    • 7 Pages

    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.…

    • 1682 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Most Americans are familiar with the Fifth Amendment due to the popular phrase “I plead the fifth,” which is used as a defense in trials. But what should be familiar are the protections that we might take for granted such as the protection from double jeopardy. This means that a person cannot be tried more than once for the same offense (Salky, 2010). When reading the Fifth Amendment it could be agreed upon that this is where the right to remain silent and the Miranda Rights emerged from. The Fifth Amendment reads:…

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Miranda Decision

    • 345 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that established that a suspect has the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights.…

    • 345 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays