955 (2009) II. The Relevant Facts Montejo, who was a murder suspect, waived his Miranda rights and was interrogated at a sheriff’s office. He was brought before a judge for a hearing where he was appointed legal representation. Later that day, two officers visited him at the prison and asked Montejo to accompany them to locate the murder weapon, which he claimed he had thrown into a lake. He was read his Miranda rights again and agreed to go with the officers to search for the murder weapon. Montejo
Words: 325 - Pages: 2
night?” c. “Did you assault George Smith at 5th and Main last night?” d. “Why did you assault George?” 5. When conducting an interview, you should a. interview all witnesses at once. b. give first consideration to eyewitnesses. c. give the Miranda warning first. d. interview the victim or complainant first. 6. People may volunteer information if approached correctly. Consequently, the following technique is useful to demonstrate when conducting an interview. a. developing rapport b. developing
Words: 2043 - Pages: 9
2016, pp. 490). • The right to the presence of an attorney, either hired by the defendant or appointed by the court (Remy et al., 2016, pp. 490). These protections, otherwise known as the Miranda rights, are based on the previous case (or precedent) known as Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year old woman. Being found guilty of both crimes, the US Supreme Court overturned the conviction stating that his rights were violated; the police
Words: 439 - Pages: 2
Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused Damon Gordon Kaplan University Date According to the Fifth Amendment, police officers are supposed to give John Miranda rights. The rights involve explaining to John that whatever he said at that moment could be used against him in court. They should also let him know that he has a right to counsel. Miranda rights were created in 1966 and anybody in police custody like John is entitled to them. In case John needs an English interpreter, the rights say that
Words: 618 - Pages: 3
What does the Miranda Right mean to you as an individual? Well, the Miranda Rights are more than just four set of words read to a criminal suspect before interrogation or upon arrest. These rights are the only protection to the individual unfamiliar with criminal laws. Along with the order in which the police investigate, interrogate and read suspects their rights, but most importantly officers must be sure that the suspect fully understands his/her rights because if the individual lacks the ability
Words: 262 - Pages: 2
On account of Hiibel v. the sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Larry Hiibel had been captured and accused of defying Nevada's accompaniment law alleged "stop and identify." Hiibel was with a added active adult sitting in his barter if the adjacent Sheriff's Department got a alarm about a man who had addled a adult and was in a red and argent GMC truck, which both fit the delineation and the breadth of Hiibel at the time. At the point if the cop drew nearer Hiibel and requests his apparent affidavit
Words: 289 - Pages: 2
Arizona (Lee, 2004). Miranda was questioned concerning his alleged kidnapping, robbery and rape. Without the knowledge that he was incriminating himself, he confessed to the crime. Later, an attorney challenged the court that Miranda was not aware of his rights and any and all evidence presented was admissible. The court agreed, and he was released from prison after
Words: 624 - Pages: 3
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
Words: 790 - Pages: 4
self-incrimination. Next let me briefly explain the Miranda v. Arizona case. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. After several hours of being interrogated, Miranda finally confessed and agreed to sign a written statement that included a typed disclaimer stating he had full acknowledgement of his legal rights to include understanding that any statements can be used against him and that he voluntarily waived his rights. In actuality, Miranda did not have an attorney present during
Words: 606 - Pages: 3
The Miranda decision is that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." (Zalman, 2008, p. 386). The Miranda decision allows an individual his or her Fifth Amendment rights which are the rights of self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment the right to an attorney. The Miranda decision impacted
Words: 270 - Pages: 2
