Supreme Court Cases In The 20th Century

Supreme Court decisions had a great positive impact on the rights of suspected criminals throughout the 1900s. Cases such as Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona helped clarify the rights of suspected criminals, as well as holding the police accountable for their actions so as to reinforce the rights of all people . All three of the aforementioned cases occurred during the Warren Court era, from 1953 to 1969 (Boundless). In terms of activism, the Warren Court was the most influential court of the 1900s, creating precedent in many areas, from segregation in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education to equal representation in court districts in Reynolds v Sims (Oyez). Supreme Court decisions in the 20th century, specifically
Arizona concerns a person’s Fifth Amendment freedom from self-incrimination (Oyez). Argued in 1966, the facts of the case were that Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police officers obtained a written confession from Miranda. This confession was admitted into court despite the officer’s admission that they did not inform Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty, and after appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the lower court’s decision. This case was then sent to the US Supreme Court (Oyez). The legal question posed by this case was this: does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self incrimination apply to police interrogations of arrested suspects (Oyez)? The Court concluded, in a five to four decision, that yes, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self incrimination applies to police interrogations (Oyez). Suspected criminals, according to this decisions, must be informed of their right to have a lawyer present when they are being interrogated (Oyez). This case is important because it led to the establishment of the Miranda Rights, which is a collection of rights that a suspected criminal must be read when they are arrested, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. Miranda Rights, named after Ernesto Miranda, are used
The case Mapp v. Ohio reinforced the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment, and extended it to state court proceedings. The case Gideon v. Wainwright secured the rights of a suspected criminal to counsel at trial. Finally, the case Miranda v. Arizona established the reading of Miranda Rights to suspected criminals who are arrested. These three cases have had heavy implications on the rights of suspected criminals, in large part because of the previous rulings that were overturned as a result of these cases. For example, the decision in Gideon v. Wainwright overturned the decision in the 1942 Supreme Court case Betts v. Brady, which concluded that criminal defendants who cannot afford a lawyer do not have the right to a state-appointed lawyer for their defense (Oyez). These three cases, Mapp, Gideon, and Miranda, have all had an extremely significant impact on the course of American legal history, especially in the case of the rights of suspected criminals, and it goes without saying that many court cases today would be a lot different if these three had not been argued in the 1960s. The Warren Court was very influential in that matter; it’s affects are still being felt today. Between these three cases, Brown v. Board of Education, Reynolds v. Sims, and all other cases in which the civil liberties established in the Bill of