...The Miranda Warning for the past decade, many organizations have sort to change many of the laws, governing our rights and freedom. These laws were passed by congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Miranda Warning is one of these laws. The Miranda Warning is intended to protect the guilty as well as the innocent and should be protected at all costs. Without the law, many suspects may be treated unfairly. It is a necessary safeguard. Miranda is a ruling which says that the accused have the right to remain silent and prosecutors may not use statements made by them while in police custody, unless the police advice them of their rights. In other words, a police officer must inform a suspect of this fundamental right, under the Fifth Amendment, at the time of their arrest and or interrogation. Miranda protect ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves. Does the Miranda Rights benefit the defendant too much where as the courts throw out voluntary confessions? The Fifth Amendment clearly states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia. (U.S Constitution Fifth Amendment) When arresting citizens, officers must inform the individual of his or her rights or the statement that was said will be disregarded in the court of law. (U.S. Gov Info/Miranda: Right of Silence) These rights are called Miranda rights which...
Words: 547 - Pages: 3
...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
...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
...“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney…” This is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But where did this saying come from? Throughout 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
...authority to make the final decisions regarding our Constitutional rights of American 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...
Words: 1162 - Pages: 5
...U.S. Constitution – The Miranda Warning Technically, The Miranda Warning is not in the U.S. Constitution. The Miranda Warning came about after Miranda vs. Arizona in 1966. But it refers to the Fifth Amendment right that protects against self-incrimination, or "the right to remain silent". (Cornell) Amendment V “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Mount 2010) Basically, the 5th amendment is to protect people in situations from getting in trouble it even protects ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves. In particular, it stops you from having to speak to the police or testify against yourself before a court, so it is best to keep your mouth shut until you have a lawyer. It also says that the government has to have a reason for arresting you and that you have the right to a trial with a jury, that you cannot be charged with capital a crime (murder) without a Grand Jury's permission, except in cases when you’re in the military...
Words: 1245 - Pages: 5
...Miranda The Fifth Amendment commands that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” By this creed the Miranda rights when invoked, protects the suspect from relaying information to law enforcement which can used in a court of law against him. Even though the Miranda rights now occupy a pivotal place in American legal culture, it is still evolving and the Courts have continued to define its scope, strength and limitations since the initial ruling in 1966. Within the fact pattern given in Appendix I there are several incident components. The basic outline describes police Officer Watson responding to a burglary in progress call at 2:00 a.m., witnessing a person in dark clothing fleeing the reported scene of the crime. Pursuit first by car and then on foot ensues, with the suspect even climbing a fence in his effort to get away from the officer. A metal object is discarded prior to when Officer Watson catches the suspect. Officer Watson asks about the discarded object, and then finds the knife and some jewelry. He places the suspect under arrest then continued to ask the suspect questions about the knife and jewelry. The suspect remains silent and Officer Watson takes him back to the station for further interrogation. There the suspect confessed to the burglary under questioning. Ideally the Miranda rights should be read to the suspect after he or she has officially been taken into custody, but prior to any questioning or interrogation...
Words: 1096 - Pages: 5
...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
...presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In summary, the 5th Amendment protects individuals from 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 his questioning, or at his preliminary hearing. The fact that he was not even aware that he had the right to consult with an attorney prior to his court appearance violated his constitutional rights. Consequently he was convicted of his charges and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. During Miranda’s appeal, his lawyer argued that he had been denied his constitutional rights for illegally obtaining his confession. Eventually...
Words: 606 - Pages: 3
...Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery (Landmark Cases). After being arrested, Miranda was interrogated for hours where Miranda allegedly confessed to the crimes. He then stood trial were this confession being the only evidence from the prosecution and he was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Ernesto Miranda never finished the ninth grade, had a history of mental problems and received no counsel during the interrogation or trial. Following his conviction, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court “claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” (Landmark Cases). The court upheld the conviction. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally looked at the case in 1966. Upon evaluation of the case the court found many flaws in the arrest of Ernesto Miranda. Under the Fifth Amendment the suspect has right to refuse to be a witness against himself and the Six Amendment, which gives a guarantee to a criminal defendants the right to an attorney (Landmark Cases). This is the police’s duty to inform all suspects of these rights, something that was not given prior to the two-hour interrogation. Chief Justice Earl Warren made this all part of the written decision in a 5-4 ruling by The Supreme Court that overturned the conviction of Ernesto Miranda (Landmark Cases). Ernesto Miranda would later be retried and convicted of the same crimes without the...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
...is an interview with Justice Tom C. Clark one of the nine Justices for the United States Supreme Court. The case Miranda v. Arizona was argued February 28, March 1st, and 2nd 1966 the decision was June 13th, 1966. The vote was 5 to 4 in favor of Miranda v. Arizona. Q. Where did this case originate? Mr. Justice Clark Miranda v. Arizona originated in Phoenix Arizona, when Ernesto Miranda an immigrant was arrested for kidnapping and rape, he was taken into custody and question for two hours by police until he confessed. What the police did was not inform Mr. Miranda of two rights he is entitled to. The 5th and 6th Amendment, the right to protect himself against self-incrimination and the right to have counseling. The case went to court, the prosecutor used his confession as evidence along with other evidence. Miranda was convicted and sentenced for 20 to 30 years in prison. Q. Were there any other cases similar to this being considered by the United States Supreme Court? Mr. Justice Clark Yes three others Virgira v. New York, Westover v. United States, California v. Stewart, all three of these cases were based on the accused were not informed of their 5th and 6th amendment rights of remaining silent, and the right to counsel. Q. Just how did the case of Miranda v. Arizona get to the U.S. Supreme Court? Mr. Justice Clark Anyone convicted of a crime has the right to appeal the conviction if they believe a legal error occurred. Usually there are only two challenges where...
Words: 1127 - Pages: 5
...Accused Versus Victim’s Rights The United States of America relies on due process of law to ensure equal protection of life, liberty and property to all citizens. Police 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...
Words: 1921 - Pages: 8
...5th Amendment Right to be Free of Self-Incrimination Let me first begin by explaining the 5th Amendment. According to the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In summary, the 5th Amendment protects individuals from 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 his questioning, or at his preliminary hearing. The fact that he was not even aware that he had the right to consult with an attorney prior to his court appearance violated...
Words: 615 - Pages: 3
...took a controversial turn as the authorities decided to ignore the Miranda Warnings by not Mirandizing him. Because of this, the entire trial and conviction became shrouded in controversy. The Miranda Warnings were established after Ernesto Miranda, an alleged rapist in Phoenix, Arizona, appealed his case because of the fact that he did not know his rights granted by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prior to interrogation. As a result of this appeal, the Supreme Court handed down its decision that all criminal suspects must be dictated their rights before interrogation....
Words: 1038 - Pages: 5
...February 25, 2013 PLS 135 Miranda vs. Arizona In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was the plaintiff and the state of Arizona was the defendant. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of the March 1963 kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl in Phoenix, Arizona. After the crime the police picked up Miranda because he fit the description of the girl’s attacker. The officers took him into an interrogation room and told him that he had been identified by the victim, although that was false. After the police questioned Miranda for two hours, he confessed. At the trial, the defense counsel tricked one of the detectives into admitting that Miranda was never given the opportunity to seek advice from an attorney before his interrogation. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 40-60 years in prison. When he tried to appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court set aside his conviction. Then Chief Justice Warren wrote: “Prior to and questioning, the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed…” Miranda was retried, only this time without his confession being introduced into evidence at the trial, he was convicted again. Even though his original...
Words: 589 - Pages: 3
