The Miranda Decision
In 1966, the U. S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Miranda
v. Arizona. The Miranda decision was a departure from the established law in the area of
police interrogation. Prior to Miranda, a confession would be suppressed only if a court
determined it resulted from some actual coercion, threat, or promise. The Miranda
decision was intended to protect suspects of their 5th Amendment right of no
self-incrimination. The verdict of Miranda v. Arizona is an efficient way of informing
criminal suspects of their rights established by the Constitution, allowing un-Constitutional
confessions to be nullinvoid in the court of law. However, it does not enforce it well
enough. For example, a statement taken in violation of Miranda can be used for
impeachment purposes and deciding whether evidence derived from a Miranda violation is
admissible. Also, Miranda applies to undercover police interrogation and prior to routine
booking questions, protecting all suspect in American custody to be aware of their rights.
Next, it says that police may not continue to interrogate a suspect after he makes a request
for a lawyer.
At approximately 8:30 p.m. on November 27, 1962, a young woman left the First
National Bank of Arizona after attending night classes. A male suspect robbed the woman
1
of $8 at knife-point after forcing his way into her car. Four months later, the same suspect
abducted an 18-year-old girl at knife-point and, after tying her hands and feet, drove to a
secluded area of the desert and raped her. On March 13, 1963, police arrested
23-year-old Ernesto Arthur Miranda as a suspect in the two crimes. Miranda had a prior
arrest record for armed robbery and a juvenil...
... middle of paper ...
....
The Supreme Court has practically abandoned the underlying principle of the
Miranda decision, that custodial police interrogation is inherently coercive, and has carved
out many exceptions to the Miranda exclusionary rule. Consequently, a violation of the
Miranda ruling does not necessarily mean that the resulting statement will be inadmissible.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Miranda warnings are not constitutionally
required but are only prophylactic rules designed to protect a suspect's right against
compelled self-incrimination. Voluntariness remains the constitutional standard that must
be met when obtaining a statement from a suspect. Nonetheless, law enforcement
agencies should consult with legal counsel to ensure that investigative practices conform
to the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Miranda and other precedent.
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
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 effect on law enforcement. Police have found it 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.
Ernesto Miranda grew up not finishing high school. He didn’t finish the 9th grade, and he decided to drop out of school during that year. He also had a criminal record and had pronounced sexual fantasies after dropping out of high school. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963. He had raped an 18 yr. girl who was mildly mentally handicapped in March of 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. When he was found and arrested, and he was not told of his rights before interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, the cops and detectives had a written confession from Miranda that he did do the crimes that he was acquitted for. Miranda also had a history mental instability, and had no counsel at the time of the trial. The prosecution at the trial mainly used his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of both counts of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court in
One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson
I arrived on scene at 17:10 hours. A juvenile was standing under the carport beside a white Dodge Durango. The reporting party, Kaella D. Barners (F/B, DOB: 05/04/1977), exited the front door when she seen deputies arrive. I approached the juvenile, Katera Edwina Barners (F/B, DOB: 08/29/2000). Katera was calm and cooperative. Katera had been upset at her mother. I observed an end table on the hood of the vehicle. I asked Katera if she put it there. Katera said she threw it there in attempt to damage the vehicle.
However, with every rule there also exceptions like: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, and Berghuis v. Thompkins. Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police, the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises and or coercion.
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.
...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.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
been forced to drive to a rural area before the assailant raped her twice ("A.B. Butler").She was
Garrett, B. L. (n.d.). The Substance of False Confessions. Criminal Justice Collection. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from find.galegroup.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/gtx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28su%2CNone%2C28%29%22Wrongful+Convictions+%28Law%29%22%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28RE%2CNone%2C3%29ref%24&sgHitCo
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.
What does this mean to you? Well if you are ever arrested for being suspected of a crime, the police are legally obligated to advise you of your Miranda rights. If they do not do this and they start to ask you questions, and interrogate you, then anything you say cannot be used against you in court, and you could have the charges dropped. The police are not supposed to question you at all unless you have been read your Miranda rights and you then waive those rights. You can waive your rights either verbally tell the officer you waive your rights, or by signing a rights waiver form.
Miranda v. Arizona is a case that revolutionized the rights of an accused while in custody and interrogation. The Supreme court leaders based the rights of Mr. Miranda by the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution. The fifth amendment has been interpreted though the decision of supreme court rulings into the right to remain silent in an interrogation in order to prevent the accused to testify against himself. This amendment also protects any person from double jeopardy from the same crime, gives him or her a grand jury, and it requires for due process of law to come in effect in case a citizen is denied him or her from their right of life, liberty, or property.