...Court judges named Tom C. Clark. The case that it will be about is the Miranda V. Arizona case, which took place in February through March within 1966 the ruling, came out in June of 1966. In the ruling of the case of the case a five to four vote, which the decision went to Miranda v. Arizona in the case (Hendrie, Edward M, 1997). Q. the origins of where this case located Justice Tom C. Clark. The case of Miranda V. Arizona located, within the city and state of Phoenix Arizona the person name Ernesto A. Miranda. That came in this area as an Immigrant from his native country arrested and accused of sexual assault and kidnapping, which they took Miranda in for questing. They held in questing for almost two hours, which made him confessed to the criminal act to the officers. However when in questing is Amendments was violated the fifth and sixth that is the person has a right to keep their selves from incriminating his or herself also they have a right to legal representation. Once they had the confession, they go to court in which the confession used by the prosecutor as evidence with other items. Because of this, the ruling did not go in his favor, and he was to 20-30 years behind bars (Hendrie, Edward M, 1997). Q. Have it been any cases are like this which considered in the Supreme Court? Justice Tom C. Clark. There have been other cases like this California v. Stewart, Westover v. the United States, Virgira v. New York. With the cases, they were on the bases, of the defendants...
Words: 1439 - Pages: 6
...Miranda v. Arizona: Half a Century Later by: September 2nd, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION A. Executive Summary – In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated the case Miranda v. Arizona the most important aspect of due process and criminal procedure ever affecting law enforcement and prosecutorial conduct of an investigation. The main issues in this case were: * The admissibility of a defendant’s statements if such statements were made while the defendant was held in police custody or deprived of freedom of movement in a significant way; * What procedures were required to guarantee the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination according to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? This case is considered the summit of the criminal procedure evolution establishing specific procedures to safeguard the rights of defendants beyond the courtroom and onto the police station. The procedural details and the breadth of civil rights tangled in these four cases, made this decision the pinnacle case in the area of criminal procedure. Nowadays, this decision gave the name to what is widely known as the “Miranda Warnings” which include: 1. The suspect has the right to remain silent, 2. Anything he/she says may be used as evidence against him, 3. He/she has a right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and 4. If indigent, he/she has a right to a lawyer selected for him without charge. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE...
Words: 1278 - Pages: 6
...The criminal justice system is greatly shaped by the civil rights safeguarded under the Bill of Rights. The court jurisprudence with regard to national security and civil liberties largely revolves around the provisions of the Bill of Rights (Baker, 2003). This paper discusses Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist’s significant decisions and the effects they had on the balance between social order maintenance and individual liberties. Warren versus Rehnquist Courts Earl Warren held the position of Chief Justice between 1953 and 1969. He led a liberal majority, who utilized the judicial authority to consternate their conservative opponents. The Warren Court promoted the federal power, judicial power, civil liberties, and civil rights in a dramatic fashion. The Rehnquist Court, on the other hand, took a conservative approach in criminal justice (Pollak, 1979). The most significant case that the Warren Court decided with regard to civil liberties was Brown v Board of Education of Copeka, Kansas (1954). The court unanimously ruled that there is no place for the doctrine of separate but equal doctrine in the sphere of public education. The Warren Court demonstrated its value for liberalism and activism. The view of the Warren Court was that states are a hindrance in the enhancement of a just nation. In the sphere of criminal procedure and law enforcement, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court was associated with four chief cases: Terry v Ohio (1968), Miranda v Arizona...
Words: 2153 - Pages: 9
...DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF THE MIRANDA WARNINGS Miranda v. Arizona - 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963. Upon his apprehension, Mr. Miranda was presented with a confession requiring his signature; Mr. Miranda underwent a police interrogation that was reported as spanning upwards of 2 hours – within his interrogation, he made a full confession, agreeing that he did so without duress, force, or threat. However, at no time was Mr. Miranda ever told about this right to council or his right to remain silent. Prior Proceedings: Mr. Miranda was charged with kidnapping Count I; and Rape, Count II; and pronounced guilty by the Superior Court, Maricopa County, Yale McFate, J., entered a judgment of guilty sentenced to serve from twenty to thirty years on each count, to run concurrently. (Arizona, 1965) Vignera v. New York, the defendant made oral admissions to the police after interrogation in the afternoon, and then signed an exculpatory statement upon being questioned by an assistant district attorney later the same evening. Westover v. United States, the defendant was handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by local authorities after they had detained and interrogated him for a lengthy period, both at night and the following morning. After some two hours of questioning, the federal officers had obtained signed statements from the defendant California v. Stewart, the local police held the defendant...
Words: 957 - Pages: 4
...1961 to 1969, the Warren Court examined almost every aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State. This process became known as the “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights. During those years, cases concerning the right to legal counsel, confessions, searches, and the treatment of juvenile criminals all appeared on the Court's docket. The Warren Court's began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, which was the first of several significant cases that re-evaluated the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to state judicial systems. In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturne the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment sets the standards for searches and seizures by law enforcement officials in the United States, the Court noted, and the 14th Amendment requires judges to uphold those standards in every State. Evidence gained by an illegal search became inadmissible in State courts as a result of the decision. The “Mapp Rule” has since been modified, so the exclusionary rule is no longer as absolute as when first handed down in Mapp. Critics of the Warren Court charged that it “had gone too far in interfering with police work.” With its decisions in the cases of Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Escobedo v. Illinois the Warren Court handed down the bases of what it called...
Words: 2336 - Pages: 10
...Facts In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested in connection with the rape and kidnapping of women. While in custody and after 2 hours of interrogation, he confessed of robbery and attempted rape. His confession and the testimony of the victim were used in the trial. The judge of the Superior Court allowed the confession was used and Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison Miranda appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court; His lawyer argues that his confession should not be used in court because he had not been informed of their rights. Arizona Supreme Court rejected his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then petitioned for the case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Intimidation deprives suspects of their basic freedom and may lead to false confessions. The defendant's right to a lawyer is during interrogation allows the offender to tell their story without fear, effectively, and in a way that all his rights will be protected. Issue: Legal issue The issue of this case is if the government is required to notify the accused detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination before questioning the accused. The government has to notify detainees of their constitutional rights of the Fifth Amendment. The Amendment explain “the right to remain silent, it just mean all that they confess could be used against them in court, his right to counsel and their right to...
Words: 510 - Pages: 3
...history, the U.S criminal justice system has always relied on the due process of law to ensure fair treatment in the judicial system. Authority figures work tirelessly and endless hours to follow regulations to assure only criminals are convicted. These regulations, have been a part of the justice system since its creation in 1791, which ensures the equal protection of life, liberty, and property to all citizens -- a citizen’s entitlement. However, in the 1960s, the view that crime must be...
Words: 875 - Pages: 4
...Miranda v Arizona Westwood College Miranda v. Arizona Every time someone is arrested the police officer reads them their right, which was not always the case. They read as followed "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 can't afford one, one will be provided to you." But why do the officers have to remind the people of their rights, because of the Miranda v. Arizona case. Before the Miranda v. Arizona case people were not reminded or even aware that they had such rights. In the 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape. He was accused of kidnapping and raping a young girl and when the officers arrested Miranda and then the victim identified him. After the trial was done Miranda was found guilty because after being interrogated for a couple hours he confessed to the crime not knowing that the 5th amendment states you don't have to plead guilty if you do not want to. That is what self incrimination is, for example when Miranda was being asked about the crime he did not have to answer he could of just said he plead the 5th and said he wanted to wait for an attorney to both consult him and be with him while he was being interrogated. If Miranda would have known that he had that right he probably would not have incriminated himself. Miranda was also known to have some mental problems and...
Words: 1127 - Pages: 5
...officers work tirelessly to accommodate regulations adopted to ensure only criminals are convicted. These restrictions have been part of the United States since the Bill of Rights was generated in 1791, but in the 1960s, as “Law and Order,” the view that crime must be dealt with harshly to deter citizens from breaking the law, the Supreme Court was forced to decide the constitutionality of the rules of interrogation. In the Sixties, crime was escalating and public safety was becoming a growing concern; police began to treat suspects harsher in an effort to raise conviction rates and promote public safety. In 1966, however, the jurisprudence of the entire US justice system changed when the court of Chief Justice Earl Warren was presented with the case Miranda v Arizona. In this case, the majority decision ruled to protect suspects’ rights, extending equality of protection regardless of legal knowledge or background, not only highlighting the trends of human rights and equality in the Sixties, but also the tensions between criminal rights versus public safety, demonstrating a shift from the conservative ‘law and order’ jurisprudence to more liberal methods of interrogation and conviction. On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda kidnapped a woman (whose name was not released to the press for her safety), drove her into the desert, and raped her. After an eleven day investigation, Detectives Cooley and Young caught Miranda and took him to police station for questioning. During Miranda’s interrogation...
Words: 1921 - Pages: 8
...had to come up with a complex set of laws procedures for dealing with those accused of breaking the law. I will attempt to explain the criminal justice process and the different avenues the process can take. When crimes do occur in the United States this is only the start of the criminal process. First a crime must committed or believed to be committed. Usually some one will call 911, 311, or flag down an officer or perhaps the officer will witness the crime him or herself. Some time criminals are caught in the act or apprehended some later. The choice to commit crime is up to each of us and is really the start of the entire process. Every thing that comes after is just a response to this act. The next step after apprehending a suspect is to read this person their Miranda rights. This is very important as a suspect could be set, free later on at trial if this does not happen. Law Enforcment officers at any level must verbally inform an individual of their rights. These are the right to remain silent, warning that any answers can be used in a court of law, and the right to an attorney. This is a good thing because the person under arrest may not understand the right afforded to them and unfairly incriminate them self. These right are mainly the consequence of the U.S supreme court ruling in the case of Miranda vs Arizona. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966),This law was not universally accepted. Many police officers hated it. Ever since the Wickersham commission it was public knowledge...
Words: 2201 - Pages: 9
...MIRANDA v. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436 (1966) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA. No. 759. Argued February 28 - March 1, 1966. Decided June 13, 1966. Facts: The United States Supreme Court combined four separate cases into one ruling due to similar issues regarding the way evidenced was obtained during police interrogations. All four Defendants (Ernesto Miranda, Michael Vignera, Carl Calvin Westover, and Roy Allen Stewart) committed separate, unrelated crimes, but all were questioned without a lawyer present and were not notified of their Fifth Amendment rights of protection from self-incrimination (“Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”). Miranda was arrested and signed a confession for kidnapping and rape. He later was found guilty and appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona. Here, the Supreme Court Justices held that Miranda’s rights were not violated while obtaining the confession. Vignera was arrested and admitted to robbery without being notified of...
Words: 790 - Pages: 4
...or giving the “third degree” to criminal suspects. Thus, brought the birth of legal aid movements, this was helpful for the suspects to receive legal aid. In other words, with this movement and many more after, police interrogations made people start to question officer’s behavior during interrogations. To illustrate, the famous Supreme Court of the United States landmark court case, Miranda V. Arizona, was one of the identifying starts of others questioning government authorities and citizen’s constitutional rights. In Miranda V. Arizona, on March 13, 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was apprehended due to, kidnapping, rape, and robbery....
Words: 506 - Pages: 3
...citizens. Some court cases are relatively straightforward. However, due to the wide nature of potential situations, cases often appear that ask fundamental and difficult questions about the nature of legal principles. One famous case that comes to mind is the Miranda v. Arizona, which reached the Supreme Court in 1966. Police investigations varied between departments throughout the United States. Some procedures which some became labeled coercive began to be observed, in some urban centers. Police officers want to determine the facts in cases of criminality and to protect the public by apprehending the perpetrators of crime. Some argued that taking overly aggressive actions undermined the civil liberties upon which the American Nation was founded. Given these competing arguments, and the Warren Court’s then recent trend toward increases activism, the setting was set for a hearing of these matters in the highest court of the United States. That came in the form of Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in a serious criminal case, it involved the kidnapping and rape of a young women. His arrest was based on generally circumstantial evidence, without any clear proof. Police investigators decided to interrogate Miranda in order to ascertain the facts of the matter. Evidence in the case indicates that under police interrogation, Miranda confessed to the charges against him. A written statement was drawn up, which had included waivers in which Miranda attested that he was...
Words: 1162 - Pages: 5
...Fuller CJA 301 MOD 3 Case 9 January 2014 The History of Miranda Rights Miranda Rights is a ruling, based upon a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a 1966 case, that law-enforcement officers must warn a person taken into custody that he or she has the right to remain silent and is entitled to legal counsel. (legal-dictionary.com) Miranda rules prevent a person from self-incrimination. The fifth- amendment is an amendment to the US Constitution states that no person may be compelled to testify against himself; and a person can refuse to answer a question on the grounds that it might incriminate oneself. Miranda prevents criminal investigators form violating a suspect fifth-amendment rights. A series of unfortunate events led up to the Miranda Rights being implemented into the criminal justice system. On March 2nd, 1963 a young woman reported her tape to the Phoenix, Arizona police department. She told the police that she had been driven to the desert and raped by a male unfamiliar to her. Although her polygraph test was inconclusive they arrested Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto Miranda had a prior history as a peeping tom and his car fit the description provided by the victim. Another flaw from the beginning was the victim did not identify Miranda in a line-up before he was brought into police custody and interrogated. After being interrogated for hours the police received a full confession from Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto Miranda later recanted his statement...
Words: 1300 - Pages: 6
...University of Phoenix Material Acquiring Admissible Statements Worksheet Conduct an Internet search by visiting the state websites for Arizona, Illinois, New York, and California. Locate the legal requirements to obtain admissible statements in these states. Include your research findings in the following table. |State |Legal requirements |Precedent |Other | |Arizona |The legal requirements for |Brown v. Illinois takes |The Private Safety Exception | | |obtaining admissible statements |precedent over the admissibility|states that when a suspect is in| | |under the Arizona law, according|of a statement, if the Fourth |need of medical help statements | | |to (Arizona Revised Statues, |Amendment is violated, then any |may be admitted even if the | | |Rules of Criminal Procedure, |material or evidence, which was |Miranda law was violated in | | |Rules of Evidence & More, n.d.),|gained from the violation of the|order to save that person’s | | |“admissibility statements under |Fourth Amendment, is also |life. | | |oath by a party or witness |inadmissible. ...
Words: 1519 - Pages: 7
