Miranda Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

1063 Words5 Pages
MIRANDA WARNING 2 The Duhaime’s Law Dictionary defines Miranda Warning as: “A requirement that police officers, in the U.S.A., before any questioning is so begun, warn suspects upon arrest that they have the right to remain silent, that any statement that they make could be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to contact a lawyer and that if they cannot afford a lawyer, that one will be provided”. If an officer fails to read the Miranda warning prior to questioning, any confession or information that is obtained will not be admissible in court. The Miranda Warning received its name in 1966 when the United States Supreme Court deemed it to be a national police requirement after the ruling in the case of Miranda v Arizona. The Supreme Court’s decision was also based on three other cases which all involved custodial interrogations. The cases were Vignera v New York, Westover v United States and California v Stewart. The Supreme Court hearing was held over a three day period, February 28 – March 2, 1966 with the final ruling coming on June 13, 1966 with a 5 – 4 vote. After this ruling, police officers argued that this would tie their hands and their ability to thoroughly investigate a crime. Political figures, such as Richard Nixon, linked Miranda to rising crime rates. He even went as far as saying that that the Miranda decision was a victory for crime forces. With this ruling, the Supreme Court states that when a person talks after they’ve been read the Miranda warning, there is great burden upon the prosecutor, otherwise known as the state, to prove that the suspect knowingly waived his right to remaining silent and to speaking without the presence of legal counsel. MIRAND... ... middle of paper ... ...s statement led to a nine count indictment. MIRANDA WARNINGS 5 Nunez’s defense attorney had the transcripts transcribed by a translator and found interpreter flubbed Martinez-Nunez’s Miranda Rights. The interpreter failed to give Nunez a complete Miranda warning and failed to advise him that he could stop the interview at any time. This led for a defense motion to be brought forward asking for the judge to suppress statements that were made during the phone interview with Reynoldsburg police. The judge, John Bessey, granted the motion. The Assistant Prosecutor Mark Wodarcyk then filed a motion to dismiss the case as the statements were the entire basis of the case. Unfortunately, this left the state with insufficient evidence to move forward. Judge Bessey granted the dismissal on June 7, 2011.

More about Miranda Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Open Document