Premium Essay

Miranda vs Arizona


Submitted By bmx470055
Words 510
Pages 3
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 have a lawyer to represent them if necessary”. Without this notification, anything that an offender says during interrogation is not admissible in court.

Decision and Rationale of the Court
The case of Miranda v Arizona was 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a defendant in response to an interrogation in police custody could be admissible in trial only if the

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Miranda vs. Arizona

...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

Premium Essay

Miranda vs Arizona

...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

Premium Essay

Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

...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

Premium Essay

Why Is Miranda Vs Arizona Necessary

...As a result of the Miranda cases and the Supreme Court ruling in the cases officers are obligated to inform individuals of their rights that afforded to them These rights come straight from the Supreme Court ruling and must be read to the suspect before any questioning of a suspect who have been obtained. In this famous case, Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects can only be interrogated after the police read them their legal rights. In reading on I have learn more about the details and legal legacy of Miranda v. Arizona. This cases ended up as a lock case. Some may have felt that the way to handle this was to lock away the Mr. Miranda based on the evidence. However, My opinion of the case is was the questioning, and during the interrogation a signed confession admitting that Miranda committed the crime. So there was nothing left to do but lock him away. Ernesto Miranda was detained for the kidnapping and the rape of the 18-year old woman. He was interrogated but never informed of his rights to remain silent. Miranda was eventually convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court in 1966, claiming his confession was unconstitutional. Is Miranda necessary? Yes!...

Words: 253 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay


... 2 The Miranda v. Arizona was the biggest case ever in the United States. The Supreme Court argued four different cases because of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. These four different cases were heard and it was stated that 3 of the 4 cases had written statements that were admissible in court. In this paper we will describe the facts of the four cases, we will notate when they were argued, we will describe what lawyers argued what side, we will discuss the arguments of counsel about self-incrimination and we will write about why are the cases significant to a right to counsel and self-incrimination. Miranda vs. Arizona, in this case defendant Ernesto Miranda was 23 years old when he was arrested and charged with several crimes including rape and kidnapping. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant that was living here in the United States of America. During his arrest Ernesto Miranda was notified of his constitutional rights, but in reality he wasn’t supposed to because he was not a citizen so he had no rights. Ernesto Miranda was taken in and then was questioned about the crimes that were committed, after a couple hours of interrogation Ernesto Miranda gave the police a written statement that he signed. In the statement that was signed by Ernesto Miranda it stated that he was aware of his constitutional rights. It was great that his case was overturned by the Supreme Court but after it was overturned Arizona gave him a retrial and he was found guilty...

Words: 869 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Miranda V Arizona

...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

Free Essay

Miranda Warnings

...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

Free Essay

Human Rights Analysis

...Constitutional Law: CRJS400 - 1402B - 01 Individual Project: Unit 3 Human Rights Analysis Human Rights Analysis The case of Plessy vs. Ferguson established the separate but equal doctrine that was prevalent throughout life in the South for over fifty years. The case involved a man by the name of Homer Adolph Plessy, who was a colored shoemaker from New Orleans, Louisiana. He was only 1/8 black and 7/8 white, but under Louisiana law he was considered black. It also involved a white Judge by the name of John Howard Ferguson. In 1892 Plessy was asked by the Citizens Committee which was a political group made up of African Americans and Creoles to help them challenge the Separate Car Act, which by Louisiana law separated blacks and whites in railroad cars. If a black was caught sitting in the white section of the cars, they could get either 20 days in jail or a $25 fine. He agreed to help the Committee. On June 7, 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket at the Press Street Station in New Orleans to go to Covington, Louisiana. The railroad didn’t support the Separate Car Law, because of the expense and trouble involved with it. They chose this station for that reason and the station was in on the test as well. He sat in the white only section and waited for the conductor. When the conductor arrived he told him that he was only 1/8 black and that he refused to move to the colored car of the train. A hired detective told Plessy he was violating the law but he still refused...

Words: 1022 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Warren vs Rehnquist Courts

...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 (1966), Gideon v Wainwright (1963), and Mapp v Ohio (1961). These four cases establish the foundation for the application of the principle referred to as the ‘exclusionary rule’ and the major basis for Warren Court critics. The Warren Court established the doctrine of...

Words: 2153 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Criminal Justice

...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 that police used violence to coerce confessions. The courts understood police abuse of rights was not an isolated thing. Congress disliked the law and passed a law in 1968 to overrule it, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501 (1985) No attorney generals enforced the provision and considered it unconstitutional. The...

Words: 2201 - Pages: 9

Free Essay


...Individual Project AIU Online Ashleigh Wright 02/16/2013 Case 1 Should the Supreme Court hold up and agree to the convection? No, not at all. In this case it is stated the Crain was improperly and illegally arrested, if that's e true case then yes this is almost a classic case of fruit of the poisonous tree. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.(Legal Dictionary, 2008) The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a metaphor: the poisonous tree is evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a criminal trial.(Legal Dictionary, 2008) That being stated, then no the Supreme Court should not hold up his conviction, they should actually...

Words: 1090 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Overturn Conviction

...May 3, 2005. The Court of Appeals found that detectives improperly interrogated Dorsey for 13 hours and didn’t give him his Miranda Warnings. Dorsey was found guilty and sentence to 14 years in prison. The conviction was overturned and the court ordered a new trial. Dorsey Fifth Amendment rights were violated according to a 5-2 ruling for the D.C. Court of Appeals. U.S. attorney office is reviewing the ruling. Prosecutors could retry this case. ANALYSIS Keith L. Alexandria of the Washington Post is correct when he wrote this article to uncover the violations the police department conducted when interrogating James Dorsey for the crime of assault against an 83 year old woman. Alexander presents a perspective that favors the defendant, when exploiting the fact that police detectives improperly interrogated Dorsey, and failed to give him his Miranda warning before questioning him about the crime. This action resulted in the violation of Dorsey’s Fifth Amendment rights, which got his conviction, overturned and ordered a new trial. Alexander makes good points when presenting the facts of Dorsey’s Fifth Amendment right violation while also informing his readers about the victim’s friend’s reaction to this violation and the implications. This article presented a lot of facts but did not mention the detectives reasoning for not giving Dorsey his Miranda warning. Further, the article did not mention if the police were going to investigate any new suspects, based on the fact...

Words: 1250 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Deceptive Interrogation

...Maynard CJUS 420-B02 Mr. Jeffery Fox July 1, 2013 The Negative Effects of Police Deception in Interrogation Police interrogation today is defined as; Interrogation is police questioning a suspect in order to find answers about a crime that has been committed. The suspect that is being questioned by police is entitled to know his or her rights. The evidence in the trial will be in admissible if the interrogator of the suspect does not inform the suspect of his or her rights ("Interrogation law and," 2001). In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have to read to the suspect detained the rights they are given under the Constitution U.S. Legal (2001). These rights protect the individual from falling into the trap of deceptive interrogation. Many people do not understand that if they just kept quiet and wait for a lawyer, their so-called innocence can be saved. Deceptive interrogation by law is acceptable, with the reading of the Miranda rights, and the police will use this tool as much as they can as long as it doesn’t exceed the boundaries they are placed under. Deceptive interrogation is unnecessary for law enforcement to exercise in order to convict the accused. Today’s methods of interrogation are more mental then physical as mentioned before. There are several tools police can use as a means of deceiving a suspect in order to obtain a confession or information. One common strategy is the use of fabricated documents. In the Case State v. Cayward...

Words: 1786 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Court Case

...Courtroom Observation Written Assignment Part I – First Draft – 15 points This assignment requires that you provide details of a court case, e.g. crime, victims, environmental circumstances (who, what, where, when, why), potential issues with trial, etc. You may choose from the list of defendants or cases below or choose your own. Casey Anthony Phillip Garrido George Zimmerman OJ Simpson Debra LaFave Timothy McVeigh James Holmes Scott Peterson Dennis Rader Drew Peterson Brown v. Board of Education Miranda v. Arizona Gideon v. Wainwright Roe v. Wade A 5-7 page paper (typed, double-spaced) descriptive paper will be completed. This must include at least 2 academic sources and citations must be included throughout the paper either in MLA or APA format with a reference page at the end of the paper. There should be both an introduction at the beginning of the paper as well as a conclusion at the end of the paper. The first draft of this paper is due on Wednesday, March 12. Bring a printed copy to class on this date. Part II – Student Editing – 10 points Each student will exchange papers with another student in the class to student edit each other’s work. This will be done in class and therefore cannot be made up. Please be aware of giving both positive feedback and ideas/areas where improvements can be made. This will be a benefit to both the student receiving your feedback and to your own paper. Focus on content, but do not ignore spelling and grammar. For this to...

Words: 695 - Pages: 3

Free Essay


...Neeraj Gaur Mock Trial People v. Vega * Prosecution OPENING Your Honor, may I begin? We can all argue that Miranda warnings are not necessary if the suspect is not in custody. The prosecution will argue that Adrian Vega was not in custody when speaking to Officer Wright. Adrian’s freedom was not restricted in any way because Adrian voluntarily sat inside the police cruiser to get out of the cold air. Both Officer Wright and Adrian sat inside the police cruiser only because of the cold weather. Adrian never asked to leave, never asked if the doors were locked, and was never told to stay by Officer Wright. Furthermore since Officer Wright did not need to Mirandize Adrian, her bracketed statement should be admissible in court. CASES * Berkemer v. McCarty * In this case, the officer did not need to Mirandize the defendant because he was not in custody; Miranda warnings are only given when a person is in custody and their freedom is significantly restrained. The court decided that the Officers do not need to Mirandize at traffic stops or evening when roadside questioning is taken into effect, considering it was not “custodial interrogation”. Adrian was not in custody when Officer Wright was talking to her. She voluntarily sat inside the police cruiser because it was too cold outside; her freedom was not retrained from her. * Oregon v. Mathison * This case also talks about how the defendant voluntarily comes into the police station and speaks about...

Words: 544 - Pages: 3