Preview

The Ethicality Of Miranda's Criminal Interrogation

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1028 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Ethicality Of Miranda's Criminal Interrogation
Criminal Interrogation is crucial in any investigation. Police have a great responsibility in telling the suspects their rights, using the proper tactics and even machines to get a confession. Everything police use is to get to the truth. The Miranda Rights are read to any person under arrested. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights?” Without these rights being read to the suspect, any confession given to an interrogator or police man cannot be used. The name of these rights comes from a man named Ernest Miranda. On November 27, 1962, a woman …show more content…
The man was going to rob the lady, but decided he wanted more. The lady screamed and the man ran away (4). One more incident like the first two occurred, but the third lady was not as fortunate as the others. The last lady was raped by the man who attacked the other ladies. After an investigation by the police, they found their number one suspect, Ernest …show more content…
The police had a confession from the defendant. In the court, Miranda’s trial took only a few days. Miranda’s attorney, Alvin Moore, was inexperienced in criminal court and most of the time did more harm than good for Miranda. The attorney did however make some good points. He argued that a person can’t voluntarily confess to a crime if he is not told his right to remain silent. Attorney Moore’s argument made no difference at the time because Miranda was found guilty of robbery and rape (11). Miranda was considered by almost parties involved to be guilty. The question that was beginning to be asked was when can “suspects” protect themselves with their constitutional rights?
These thoughts were still rumbling around in the nation when another trial happened that raised the volume of those rumblings. Danny Escobedo was put in the interrogation room being a suspect for murder. When in the room, the police told Escobedo that he might as well confess because they had enough to put him away. Escobedo replied by asking for a lawyer. Warren Wolfson, Escobedo previous lawyer in another matter, arrived at the police station shortly after Escobedo was taken in, but was not allowed to see his

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    FACTS: The cases of Mr. Miranda, Mr. Vignera, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Westover had similar cases, regarding the admissibility of their confessions. These cases were then addressed together by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Miranda was identified by a witness and arrested, but was not notified of his rights, although he singed a written confession after several hours of interrogation that stated that he was aware of the rights he was not notified about. A jury was presented an oral admission of guilt, as well as the written confession. The jury found Mr. Miranda guilty of murder and rape, and sentenced him to 20-30 years on both counts. Mr. Vignera, who was the second defendant, was arrested for a…

    • 928 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
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Summary

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The complaining witness identified him in a lineup and he was interrogated by two police officers. The interrogation lasted for hours which finally resulted to Miranda’s signing of a written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury and subsequently Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona which held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in the course of obtaining the confession.…

    • 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

    Their reasoning behind this decision was because it needed to be stated that he had to the right to remain silent. Not only this, but he was not told that anything that he said could be used against him in the future. These reasons were then able to prove that Miranda was not able to speak to the police freely upon his own choice of decision. One of the reasons for the decision made was because Miranda did not know he had the right to an attorney leading for him to not have full knowledge of the case and what was going on. Therefore, because the fifth amendment was not applicable to the situation that Miranda was in the prosecution should not have been able to use any of the statements that were…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 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

    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

    Why is this even considered a constitutional law case? How did Miranda v. Arizona turn into a landmark United States Supreme Court case? When this case went to trial Miranda’s court appointed attorney found out that the police never informed Miranda of his Constitutional right to counsel. So in fact by not informing Miranda that he had the right to counsel the police violated his Fourteenth Amendment which is the right to due process and his sixth amendment which is a right to counsel. If he would have had counsel present in the room he may never have signed that form confessing to the kidnapping and rape of that 18 year old woman. Miranda’s court appointed attorney at trial objected to the confession saying that his clients fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights were violated. The trial judge overruled the objection mainly because the defendant never formally asked to have an attorney present or to see or speak with his attorney. So Miranda was convicted of the crime and sent to up to 30 years in prison. Miranda’s attorney the appealed the decision all the way up to the Arizona supreme court. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that they also believed that his rights were not violated because he never asked for an…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Soon thereafter his conviction Miranda appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme court. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction and Disagreed with the unconstitutional confession. It was then that Miranda took his appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In a fourth fifths vote the United States Supreme court ruled in favor of Miranda agreeing that the police that interrogated Miranda denied him of not only his 6th amendment right to counsel however also his fifth amendment right to incriminate himself. On a completely different note the Supreme Court recognized that Miranda as well as others accused of committing crimes have long been subject to police violence and intimidation especially during interrogations and therefore many confessions have been not only forced but possibly…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mr. Miranda appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Arizona. The Supreme Court of Arizona found that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his constitutional rights, and his conviction was affirmed. Mr. Miranda appealed the Supreme Court of Arizona’s decision to the United States Supreme Court.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Case Background: A Mexican immigrant residing in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, was identified to be a suspect in the line-up of a woman who accused him of rape and kidnapping. Police then arrested and interrogated Miranda. It took up to at least two hours of interrogation by police until Miranda the confessed to the crimes. The confession was written. During the two hours of interrogation, police did not once mention Miranda’s neither Fifth Amendment Protection against self-incrimination nor his Sixth amendment right to have the right to an attorney. After Miranda’s confession the case was then taken to trial hosted by Arizona state court an prosecutors used the oral and written confession as evidence against Miranda. Miranda was then found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on each count. The conviction was then upheld due to the fact the Miranda’s attorney appealed to Arizona’s Supreme Court which then led to the case being appealed to the United States Supreme Court which also connected the case with four other similar ones. The court later came to an agreement that it is mandatory that the police have the role of protecting the rights of the accused suspect guaranteed by the…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Case Study

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda, a mexican immigrant living in the United States, was arrested by officers Carroll Cooley and Wilfred Young at Miranda's home in Phoenix, AZ. He was put into custody and taken to a local police station. Miranda was put into police lineup and was identified by the witness, Lois Jameson. Following, Miranda was interrogated for two hours by two police officers with the Arizona police department, before making a written and signed confession of the crimes. This confession was presented at trial and Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on each count of kidnapping and rape. The Supreme Court of Arizona found that Miranda's constitutional rights weren't personally violated, but ruled that police officers are required to…

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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.…

    • 649 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
  • Good Essays

    Criminal law by nature is interesting to most people. However, there are many citizens that misinterpret what their rights are in a court of law. For instance, the Fifth amendment is a person’s right to not self-incriminate. Defendants typically do not address the court directly. They do so through they attorney. Attorneys are “responsible for advising their clients of their right to testify, whether or not it is wise to do so, as ell as the strategic implications of that decision” (Stock, 2015, p. 712). Just because a defendant does not testify on their own behalf, should not presume guilt. The sixth amendment stipulates that a defendant has the right to an attorney and to a jury trial. This is the premise where miranda rights come into play.…

    • 639 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays