Preview

Miranda V. Arizona

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
649 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Miranda V. Arizona
The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes. The first court ruling where Miranda was found guilty to armed robbery was thrown out after his case was and brought up to the Supreme Court. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have informed them of their rights, which are now called Miranda Rights. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights while in custody, therefore any confessions he made could not be used against him in court. At the Supreme Court level, the conviction was overthrown because he was not informed of his right against self incrimination and his right to remain silent. The case was later re-tried without using his confessions in the trial. Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years for armed robbery. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping, he could not be prosecuted for it because there was not enough evidence to show he was the offender in those crimes once his confession was thrown out. Chief justice, Earl Warren established the


References: Case Brief of Miranda vs. Arizona 1966. (2010). Essortment Articles. Retrieved March 11, 2011, from http://www.essortment.com/case-brief-miranda-vs- arizona-1966-33397.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    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)…

    • 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
  • 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
  • Good Essays

    By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” The Court also held that “without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” As those reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart.…

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good 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
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Case Study

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. Ernesto Miranda, the first defendant, was arrested for kidnapping and rape. He confessed after two our of investigation by officers. The confession included that Miranda was given his Fifth Amendment rights prior to being arrested, which he was not. Michael Vignera, the second defendant, was being held on one count of robbery. He was interrogated for over eight hours, until he also confessed to his crimes. Likewise, Vignera had not been given his fifth amendment rights, either. The third defendant, Carl Westover, was being held on two counts of robbery. Westover was questioned for over 14 hours, but did not confess to the crimes until being handed over to FBI agents. Officers, for another time, did not give fifth amendment rights to the defendant. The fourth and last defendant, Roy Stewart, including members of his family, were arrested on suspicion of purse snatching. No evidence was shown that Stewart's family were any part of the snatching and were let go. Stewart confessed to the crimes after nine consecutive interrogations. In all four cases, officers failed to address the fifth amendment rights of the individuals being…

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court consolidated four separate court cases with issues concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. All the defendants in each of these occurrences offered incriminating evidence during interrogations from police and were not notified prior to the interrogations of their rights granted to them under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Miranda was arrested and taken into custody to a police station where he was identified by the witness. He was questioned for 2 hours by officers without being advised of his right to counsel and then signed a statement that said that his confession was voluntary. ISSUE: Whether the government is required to notify the detained individuals of their constitutional rights granted by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination prior to the individuals being interrogated by the authorities and assistance of counsel and give a voluntary waiver of these rights as a necessary precondition to police questioning and the giving of a…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which passed 5–4. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.…

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ohio (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The ruling of Mapp v. Ohio determined that all evidence that is obtained by search and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is admissible in a criminal trial in a state court overruling Wolf v. Colorado, which holds the contrary. The Exclusionary Rule applied not only to the Fourth Amendments protections against search and seizures, but also to the Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona brought the Fifth Amendment into the exclusionary rule and found that if a police fails to inform a suspect of their right to remain silent (read their Miranda Rights), if the suspect confesses, their confession was unlawfully collected and cannot be used as evidence in court. Some of the other cases regarding the good-faith exclusion of the Exclusionary Rule are Arizona v. Evans (1995), Davis v. US (2011) and Herring v. US.…

    • 578 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V

    • 1425 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old girl by Phoenix Police Department. 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 interrogation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, was identified in a police lineup by a woman, who accused him of kidnapping and raping her. Miranda was arrested and questioned by the police for two hours until he confessed to the crimes. During the interrogation, police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as evidence against Miranda, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. However, at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel. Prior to being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he had already given orally, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, nor was he informed that his statements during the interrogation would be used against him.…

    • 1425 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better 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
  • Good Essays

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used for or against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney now or at any time during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you, without cost, by the courts” (“Miranda v. Arizona.” West n.p.).…

    • 1040 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    How did it get its name Miranda from? Here a little history where the Miranda Rights got started. The Miranda Rights came from the Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona, in 1966. When Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights, but was arrested, taken to the police station. Miranda was detained in a segregated interrogation room for two hours. Was not informed about his right to receive counsel after interrogating, Arizona law enforcement had written a statement of Miranda, confession of the crime. The confession also contained a full disclaimer stating that Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights, when in fact, his legal counsel argued, he did not know. Eventually the court overturned Miranda conviction because Miranda was not formally informed of his legal right as a suspect. This allowed taking back his statement of confession. Ultimately, mandates the U.S law enforcement has inform citizens of their right to due process. This is how the Miranda Rights gets its name and was enforced throughout the United States. Because the Supreme Court would not want a case like this…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Right to Remain Silent

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you” (US Constitution Online. Steve Mount. May 10 2008). Do you recognize this as your Miranda Rights? These rights are based on the US Supreme Court’s historic Miranda vs. Arizona case and are your Constitutional rights as an accused person prior to any law enforcement questioning. On May 7, 2000 Brenton Butler, a 15 year old black male from Jacksonville, Florida, was accused of robbery and murder (Murder on a Sunday Morning. Dir. Jean-Xavier de Lestrade. Denis Poncet. 2000. DVD). This became known as the documentary, “Murder on a Sunday Morning”. Upon his arrest, and as part of legal procedure, he was read his Miranda Rights. “We could make arrangements for that” according to Detective James H. Williams. However, neither Williams nor the other arresting officers followed through with the correct course of action to get him a lawyer. It was the officers’ duty to get Butler in touch with his lawyer or a public defender, however; he was not given an attorney until the next day. He was properly told of his rights and still chose to speak with the detectives without proper representation. Should the court restrict a suspect’s right to be told that he can remain silent? In this essay I will argue both for and against being told that “you have the right to remain silent.”…

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays