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

  • Argumentative Essay On Miranda Rights

    1001 Words  | 3 Pages

    Evidence can prove that Miranda Rights should be an important right for the citizens of the United States Of America but should not be a digression or inconsequential and that shows Equality,liberty and justice. If we didn't have miranda rights we would end in a deleterious situation which would end in disaster for example, the police requirement to remember few amendment portrayed to Miranda Rights to recommend citizens that are inculpable to go to jail by police who can fabricate the situation.Evils don't have rights for other citizens like Paris which some of the victims have to be interrogated for a few days. “The Miranda warning prevents police from taking advantage of suspects who have been arrested or are in police custody. The Miranda Court determined that these protections were necessary to

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda V. Arizona

    574 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda Rights became a United States Supreme Court decision in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona), in which the high court made a decision in favor of and upheld that the Fifth Amendment rights of Miranda were violated. The Miranda ruling gives suspects the right to remain silent and not speak to any law enforcement as a means to prevent self incrimination, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, if an attorney is requested and the defendant can’t afford one, there are provisions in Miranda for an attorney to be appointed to defend the individual.

    Read More

  • The Case Of Mapp V. Ohio

    928 Words  | 2 Pages

    Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona have great impacts on the United States criminal justice system. The decision of Mapp v. Ohio ultimately aids in the strengthening of the Fourth Amendment with the extension of the exclusionary rule. Until this ruling, states did not have to obey this rule and could get away with warrantless searches. With this order, the privacy of United States citizens is safeguarded. Moreover, the Supreme Court created the “Miranda rights” as a result of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights establish that upon a person 's arrest, the police is mandated to inform that individual of his basic rights, which include “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed” (9). Essentially, people are given the right to not make any “self-incriminating statements”

    Read More

  • Fifth Amendment Pros And Cons

    547 Words  | 2 Pages

    “The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ U.S. Const. amend. V. The related provision in the Tennessee Constitution states that ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused . . . shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.’ Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9.” State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. 2000). The Supreme court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that before a subject can be questioned by the police they must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, that they have a right to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation

    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

  • Persuasive Essay On Miranda Rights

    514 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Miranda rights ensure a fair trial for everyone. The rights ensure that the accused has fair representation. Everyone wherathe suspected of a crime or not should be entitled to a fair trial. Police should be required to say this, so that people who don’t know their rights can be protected by the constitution. If people didn’t have the rights this would lead to an unfair trial that will be up to the government who wins. These rights make sure that the government doesn’t control the people. The United States of America stands for freedom and equality. The Miranda rights protect the freedoms of the

    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 V. Arizona

    543 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark case of Miranda v Arizona and declared that, whenever a person is arrested by the police should be informed prior to questioning the right under the Fifth Amendment (" the Fifth Amendment ") not to make statements that might incriminate himself.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of A Court Appointed Attorney

    492 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Miranda Rights work quite well as they were intended upon initial conception. They serve to inform, with great accuracy, the arrested individual of their rights and allow them to take the proper next course of action based on what they know. Even if they were not previously aware of their rights, the Miranda Rights serve to briefly and effectively enlighten the apprehended. However, a small, if important addendum is justifiable and perhaps necessary in that the nature of their rights as an arrested individual could be further specified.

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights

    1348 Words  | 3 Pages

    Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.

    Read More

  • Miranda v. Arizona

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda went to Arizona local court where it was decided that he would be sentenced to twenty to thirty years in jail. (Gitlin) In jail, Miranda wrote a letter to the Supreme Court and made a request to have a retrial. The court agreed that Miranda should have a retrial without using the evidence collected when Miranda was unaware of his rights. Despite having a retrial, the court came across another important issue to be addressed, Miranda’s previous arrest. Miranda had been arrested before so the court argued the question of whether or not Miranda should have known his rights from when he was read his rights during his past arrest.

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.

    Read More

  • The Miranda Warning

    551 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda is a ruling which says that the accused have the right to remain silent and prosecutors may not use statements made by them while in police custody, unless the police advice them of their rights. In other words, a police officer must inform a suspect of this fundamental right, under the Fifth Amendment, at the time of their arrest and or interrogation. Miranda protect ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves.

    Read More

  • Essay On Miranda V Arizona

    1071 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

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

Open Document