Criminal Justice Ethics and Cultralperspectives
Submitted By terrijoe
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.
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 five days in the station and interrogated him on nine separate occasions before they secured his exculpatory statement.
State v. Miranda, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965) (Arizona, 1965) in this appeal the defendant brought up several points of law: Rule 236, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. (1956); His case did not go to trial in a timely manner. He thought there were objectionable,...