The Arizona Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

768 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda vs arizona case brief

Miranda V Arizona was a supreme court case that was argued in the year 1966. Ernesto Miranda was charged with kidnapping and rape. When Miranda was arrested and questioned officers were able to get a confession from him. The question that was brought up to the supreme court was the fifth and sixth amendment. Miranda went on to win the case by majority opinion of 5-4. And this case formed the Miranda rights.
Miranda and his lawyers argued that his fifth and sixth amendment was violated. Within the fifth and sixth amendment they argued that Miranda testified against himself and also that he asked for a lawyer. In a pace law review they state that “The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his right against self-incrimination nor …show more content…

Many people have an understanding of the Miranda rights and they exercise them. It makes it harder for officers to get a confession by criminals. Many criminals will also exercise their right to counsel and the lawyer will advise them to remain silent. Also a criminal doesn’t have to be the only one to plea the fifth. A witness on the stand can exercise their rights. The way law enforcements get confessions have changed since 1966
The Miranda rights also allow a suspect to get a lawyer to represent them. This evens the field for many poor criminals. according to oyez when Miranda appeled to the Arizona supreme court they said that his sixth amendment was not violated because he did not advise to counsel. If Miranda was aware of his rights he could have had a lawyer present when questioned. Many of the criminals can’t pay for a lawyer so they wont get one. And when you make people aware of their rights you will understand that a …show more content…

In the journal of criminal law and criminology justice Harlan says” there can be little doubt that the courts new code would markedly decrease the number of confessions. To warn the suspect that he may remain silent and remind him that his confessions may be used in court are minor obstructions. To require also an express waiver by the suspect and an end to questioning whenever he demurs must heavily handicap questioning.” Even though he is right with the Miranda right making interrogation harder it is part of the fifth amendment that you do not have to self-incrimination. Even thought you are not reminded about your rights, anyone who knows the law could plea the fifth and remain

Show More
Related

  • arizona v. grant

    599 Words  | 2 Pages

    The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.

    Read More

  • Ernesto Miranda's Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona

    813 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.

    Read More

  • False Confessions and the Norfolk Four Case

    2738 Words  | 6 Pages

    Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.

    Read More

  • The Arizona Constitution

    1739 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona’s Constitution was written sometime in 1910; amended, ratified, and approved by Congress in 1911. Then Arizona became the 48th state and the last adjoining state to be welcomed in the Union; on February 14, 1912. Since then the citizens of Arizona has amended their Constitution many times. The Constitution consists of thirty articles. There were quite a lot of events that impacted the process of Arizona becoming its own state. The first section will examine the events that developed Arizona Constitution. The next section will summarize the powers and functions of Arizona's three branches of government. In the following section will discuss the procedures for amending this Constitution. Finally, a reflection on the amendment process for the Arizona Constitution will close this document.

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected.

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights Must be Read

    543 Words  | 2 Pages

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed to you” This may be differ from state to state as long as the concept is conveyed they was read their rights. Miranda Rights is mandatory across the United States due to the Miranda v. Arizona. In the following will explain what the 3 branches Judicial, Executive, and the Legislative have done to enforce this law or to change it, as well as the effect on the people.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

    366 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Miranda v. Arizona case centered around the right of those accused of a crime. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape kidnapping and robbery. These three crimes to which he later confessed at the end of a 2 hour interrogation. Miranda did not have an attorney present during these questionings even though he had a ninth grade level of education in the history of mental illness. The confession was later used by the police in order to convict ernesto Miranda of these crimes. This confession got him sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison,

    Read More

  • Fifth Amendment Essay

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).

    Read More

  • Trial Options and the Defendant's Rights

    1001 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights

    1348 Words  | 3 Pages

    Miranda v Arizona went all the way to the Supreme Court. There the Supreme Court ruled that the police do have a responsibility to inform a subject of an interrogation of their constitutional rights. The constitutional rights have to do with self-incrimination, and the right to counsel before, during and after questioning.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Some people might even argue that the Miranda’s laws might actually be harmful to law enforcement. Because the Miranda rules specify that a suspect must be read their Miranda Rights and has a right to waive those rights. If the suspect declines, the police are required by law to stop all questioning. Even if a suspect initially waives his rights, during an interrogation he can halt the process at any time by asking for a lawyer or taking back the waiver. The police, from that moment on, are not allowed to suggest that he or she reconsider (ncpa.org). Because of this, many people feel that this has had a harmful affect on law enforcement. Police have found that is much more difficult to get a confession. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), the fraction of suspects questioned who confessed dropped from 49% to 14% in New York and from 48% to 29% in Pittsburg. With fewer confessions, police also found that it is much more difficult to solve crimes. For example, following the Court decision, the rates of violent crime cases solved fell drastically from 60% (or higher) to approximately 45%. This level has remained constant over the years. Also, due to fewer confessions and fewer crimes that are solved, this means there are fewer convictions. According to the NCPA, there are 3.85 fewer convictions every year because of Miranda. Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards which are intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictate the need

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.

    Read More

  • The Miranda Warning

    551 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda also protects suspects from overzealous police officers. Although most law-enforcement agents in the United States are decent men and women, some abuse their power. They may try to coerce suspects into giving false confessions. Time and time again, we read of cases where suspects were forced to make confessions because an overzealous or prejudiced police officers want to close a case. The story of Rubin Hurricane Carter, made popular by the motion picture of the same name, demonstrated how lives could be destroyed when vindictive and manipulating detectives abuse their power. The Miranda Warning helps keep abuses in check. If the law is used correctly, the guilty would receive their due punishment. When police officers inform suspects of their rights before interrogation, it is very unlikely that the judge presiding over any case would throw out statements made during questioning.

    Read More

More about The Arizona Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Open Document