Miranda Rights Case Analysis

The case of AZ v Mauro, a necessary precursor to the case analysis is defining the application of Miranda Rights (Miranda v. Arizona) and the difference between an unlawful or lawful interrogation within the Miranda Rights. The most commonly misinterpreted actions that prompt the need for Miranda, which is only necessary if a formal custody and an interrogation will coincide. When Mirandized or given a Miranda warning informing an individual of their rights against self-incrimination, protected under the Fifth Amendment. These rights advise that the individual being arrested and taken into custody may choose to not answer any incriminating questions (which excludes standard identity or booking questions) without an attorney present. Otherwise

When a suspect in custody has chosen to waive their rights and provide police with information that is pertinent to reasons involving their arrest, interrogation is lawful- unless coerced by way of verbal threats, physical abuse, promises of stipulation upon a confession (procedural due process), or there is violation of substantive due process. If an officer is lawfully present and overhears or records a conversation or commentary, whether the suspect has been Mirandized or not, the overheard information is entirely admissible in court since there was no questioning or “interrogation” conducted in order to obtain that information. In the case of AZ v. Mauro, and many other cases, the issues regarding interrogation also relate to particular police conduct that is considered to be a type of “equivalent interrogation”, regardless if the officer’s behavior was in fact

However, in regards to his original murder case, given Mauro’s previous record of mental health issues that were are discussed in his original case, there was obvious evidence of mental illness. He spent a significant time in and out of mental institutes, he was also diagnosed as manic depressive (bipolar disorder) in the 1970’s. Regardless of any of these records at no point did the state intervene in the prevention of neglect or abuse for the safety of his children. I do believe it is possible that he experienced an episode of insanity the morning he brutally murdered his son David. I feel that his sentence was fair, but I also feel that the population with mental illness is relevant to these types of crimes and is not properly