The Supreme Court Case Miranda V. Arizona

1255 Words6 Pages
The Supreme Court case Miranda V. Arizona examined the Fifth Amendment presences inside the criminal justice system. The Fifth Amendment addresses the "rights of persons," mainly in the context of the criminal justice system also prohibits being tried twice for the same crime, requires due process of the law his also includes the right to not have land taken away by the government which also legally known as eminent domain without due process. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. During the Miranda V. Arizona hearing, the Supreme Court considered many factors that may occur during the time a defendant is detained until the time they are officially convicted of a crime. The justices were aware of the power dynamics that usually occurs between a police officer and an offender. The justices noted that most officers are provided with a manual, instructing officers how to handle individuals whom refused to discuss anything, or asked to speak with an attorney or relative. Unlike, police officer members of society are not fortunate to have been gifted a manual on how to handle oneself during detainment and custody which usually involved interrogations and at time manipulative actions to obta... ... middle of paper ... ...t trial. However, the moment that the individual indicates that they wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must terminate, and any statement taken after the person indicates that they wish to remain silent cannot be used against them. If an individual indicates that they want to speak to counsel before any interrogation occurs, their request cannot be ignored rather or not the person has the legal means to retain council. Thus, stating that the privilege against self-incrimination is granted to all regardless of income. If however, a defendant make’s an express statement that they are is willing to make a statement and does not feel the need for council, then that statement could constitute a waiver only if evidence is presented to show, that an offer for counsel was made but the defendant understood but rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver."

More about The Supreme Court Case Miranda V. Arizona

Open Document