The Arizona Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

768 Words2 Pages
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

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

Open Document