More handpicked essays just for you.
Development of the American court system
Research Assignment: Miranda V Arizona Case
Research Assignment: Miranda V Arizona Case
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Due process of law has been one of the major principles of the United States justice system. One part of due process is that police officers must follow regulations to ensure suspects are treated fair. Until the 1960’s there were no guidelines on the rights of a suspect during an interrogation. Miranda V. Arizona was a fundamental Supreme Court case that established a procedure police must follow while arresting a suspect, it also established the rights an individual has during the interrogation process. In this paper we will discuss the circumstances leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, the reasoning behind the court’s decision, the ways it has impacted the criminal justice system, and finally how the decision in Miranda’s case effected …show more content…
He was arrested for kidnapping a woman, driving her out into the desert and then raping her. Miranda was brought in for questioning over a week later, and was then arrested after police said he was positively identified in a lineup. The officers then told Miranda that he could not leave until he gave them a full confession. The officers did not tell him about his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and his right to an attorney. Miranda wrote a full confession on a piece of paper that already had information saying he knew his Constitutional rights, also he was waiving his right to counsel, and finally that he was voluntarily confessing without coercion. Miranda was then charged with first degree rape and kidnapping. Since Miranda was poor, the court appointed Miranda a public defender. The prosecution prepared their case around Miranda’s confession. While Miranda’s lawyer defended that he had no knowledge that he had the right to counsel during questioning, and that his confession was actually involuntary. When the prosecution presented Miranda’s confession to the court his lawyer objected that the evidence was obtained illegally and should be thrown out. The judge denied the motion because the paper stated that Miranda knew his Constitutional rights, and it was then ruled the confession was voluntary. After a short trial Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to twenty to thirty years in …show more content…
He stated that Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process was violated when his involuntary confession was submitted to the court, as well as his right to counsel. The prosecution failed a brief stating that Miranda had a fair trial because the constitution did not state that a defendant needs an attorney during questioning, and that Miranda never asked for counsel. The decision was upheld. The court decided that the police did everything appropriately, and Miranda’s rights were never violated when he was interrogated without an attorney present. After Miranda’s first appeal was upheld his attorney stopped representing him. Miranda then decided to write a writ of certiorari. While he was doing this the American Civil Liberties Union heard about his case, and support Miranda through this process. He was also able to get to gain two attorneys to help him, John P. Frank and John P. Flynn. On behalf of Miranda they filed the writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. At the time the Supreme Court was referred to as the Warren court, this was after the chief justice at the time Earl Warren. The Warren Court was known for taking controversial cases. The court accepted to hear Miranda’s case. Miranda’s defense counsel argued that since he was not physically told that he had the right to remain silent when he was arrested was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
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.
After two hours of interrogation by the police, Miranda wrote a complete confession, admitting to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl ten days earlier. Alvin Moore was assigned to represent Miranda at his trial which began June 20th, in front of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. It was pointed out that Miranda had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Despite that he had not been informed of his rights, Miranda was convicted, forcing him to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The charges as well as the verdict remained the same. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 1965. Criminal Defense Attorney John Flynn agreed to represent Miranda in Alvin Moore’s stead. The Supreme Court agreed that the written confession was not acceptable evidence because of Ernesto’s ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the police’s failure to inform him of them. Then state of Arizona re-tried him without the confession but with Twila Hoffman’s testimony. He was still found guilty and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, but this case set precedence for all other cases of this
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.
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
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.
Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. 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. 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. The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects.
The Judicial Branch seems to hold most of the weight on the Miranda Rights Law. The judicial court is the branch that interprets the laws. Yet the Supreme Court has the final say so. The year 1966 had a case of the Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was arrested and interrogated till he wrote a written confession that he raped and kidnapped a female. The debate was if his rights were being crossed against the 5th amendment. The Miranda rights actually are not a law but must be read to each arrested person due to the interception of the constitution. The 5th and 6th amendment stating that they have the right to have consul and the right to be silent.
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.
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.
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 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 dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
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.
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
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.