Case Study Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Improved Essays
The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case I have chosen to write about is Miranda v. Arizona. This was a case in Arizona where Mr. Miranda was arrested at his home and taken by police into custody to a police station where he was then identified by a complaining witness. Once, he was identified he was interrogated by two police officers for about two hours and as a result to this long interrogation he signed a written confession to the crime. Therefore, once the case went to trial his oral and written confessions were read to the jury. He was then found guilty of kidnapping as well as rape and sentence to 20-30 years’ imprisonment on each count (uscourt.gov. com. n.d.). After being sentenced Mr. Miranda appealed the court’s decision in the Supreme Court of Arizona and they held that his constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession (uscourt.gov. com. n.d.). Although, the Supreme Court of Arizona voted that his rights were not violated Mr. Miranda was not satisfied with their decision and took his case to the …show more content…
Police officer would not have to read them their Miranda Rights and when they get to talking about the crime the officer would not have to inform them of any rights and take their statement down which could be later used in court. Although, there may be some trickery behind the way some police receive their confessions as long as it was done legally and to a standard provided by the department and can be proven that there was no type of force used to get the confession the department would maybe solve a lot more crimes. However, if there was some form of force then the confession would not be admissible in court and the entire case could be thrown out of court. Therefore, a lot of criminal would not be too quick to talk about their crimes in front of police officers when they are not in

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The criminal has the privilege to have a sensible safeguard set for the wrongdoing he or she perpetrated and as indicated by the genuine flight hazard which he or she may force. In 1963 a man known as Ernesto Arturo Miranda was captured of charges he actually admited nightfall of interrigation, and was sentenced, and sentenced 20-30 years. Miranda's court apointed lawyer contended taht he was not educated he has a privilege to insight, and his admission was not volontary. The Arizona Incomparable Court ruled upon this case, and announced that Miranda was unconscious of the rights allowed under the fifth amendent's self implication provision, and the sixth alterations right to a lawyer.…

    • 683 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    2d 407 (1993) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d…

    • 393 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The case that I have chosen to write about is the very first on the list that we were given to choose from. Brown v. Mississippi that ultimately had the ruling of, “physical coercion violates the Fourth Amendment” (Becker, et al. p. 197). In this case, the defendants were charged with murdering an individual by the name of Raymond Stewart.…

    • 740 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He decided to appeal the conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals where Arizona reversed the decision by ruling the search was unconstitutional, and the Arizona Supreme…

    • 418 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson was fought between the state of Texas and Gregory Lee Johnson over a right that Johnson claimed to be protected by the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Texas argued that burning the American flag was not an act protected by the 1st Amendment because it causes great dissent and conflict. Johnson argued that its controversial nature is exactly why it is protected by the 1st Amendment; the 1st Amendment was added to the Constitution specifically to protect one’s unpopular opinion. This court case interested me because I found that I had a hard time deciding whether the state of Texas or Johnson was right; the case intrigued me because it made me think. Five years prior to the case, Johnson participated…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA Ernesto Miranda was born March 9, 1941 in Columbus, Arizona. It appears Miranda had a very troubled childhood: “Miranda’s mother apparently died when he was very young (around age 6)” (Blevins). Shortly after Ernesto’s mother died Miranda father reamarried.…

    • 450 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Supreme Court case I chose is Miranda v. Arizona. The issue the Supreme Court decided on was that people in police custody must be read their rights in accordance with the fifth amendment, which protects them against self-incrimination. If they aren’t read their rights (called Miranda Warnings) anything they say in custody can’t be used as evidence. The Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 in favor of this. I completely agree with the supreme court’s decision, because it respects the first amendment, freedom of speech, and the fifth amendment, which prohibits self-incrimination.…

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Imagine being arrested based on zero evidence to accuse you of a crime and at the very same time being forced to answer intimidating questions that could be used against you. Miranda v. Arizona is an iconic court case that created a large impact on racial discrimination and even how arrests would be made. It started in 1963 when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona. He was in custody for rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Ernesto Miranda appealed with the Arizona Supreme Court claiming that the police had unconstitutionally received his confessions.…

    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 1577 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Miranda vs Arizona In the years following Miranda v. Arizona, many changes were made to the verdict. The Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 declared that if a suspect voluntarily confessed to a crime within six hours after his or her arrest, this confession could be used as valid evidence in a trial, even if the suspect had not been informed of his or her Miranda rights. The passage of this act was one of the first major modifications to the initial decision. Additionally, there were many other cases that followed Miranda v. Arizona that altered the Miranda decision.…

    • 1577 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Re Gault Case Essay

    • 592 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The first case that stuck out with me the most was the In re Gault case of 1967. This case focused on a youth named Gerald Gault who was 15 at the time of the supposed offense. I feel this kid was railroad from the beginning his rights were violated in many ways. He did not receive the right to counsel, notice of charges, questioning of witness because the witness did not show up for the proceedings, protection against self-incrimination, a transcript of the proceeding, nor and appellate review all these things were denied. www.ncjrs.gov I believe it was important in establishing the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which was violated.…

    • 592 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Arizona (1966). This decision, generally speaking, defined the rights of the accused after an appeal was made on behalf of Ernesto Miranda. It said, among other things, that each person accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney (Document 7). The tradition of these Miranda rights has become common knowledge in American society, despite the fact that some people believe that they are generally too lenient and often hamper the justice system’s ability to convict guilty criminals of their crimes (Documents 5a & 5b). The Supreme Court has failed to see adequate need for reversal of this decision, despite the dramatic odds that lie in favour of the accused as a result of the decision, and the fact that the victim is often left without help when the offender is not convicted.…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda warning that arose from the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona decision assures that officers assure that those arrested are aware of their rights that protect against self-incrimination prior to any questioning. The ruling in Miranda does fulfill the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination and protects against the pressures of authority. The Miranda rights fulfills the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination because they protect against wrongful punishment and torture employed by authorities. Authorities can abuse their power in order to gain info or prove their suspicions correct.…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The investigators found a written confession admitting the offense. However, the police officers who arrested Miranda did not advise him to have an attorney during the interrogation. Even though the court charged Miranda for the crimes, the appeal in the Supreme Court of Arizona found no violation of his constitutional rights since he failed to request counsel. The amendment in check was the Fifth Amendment. D. 419 U.S. 565 Goss v. Lopez Argued: October 16, 1974 Decided: January 22,…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Arizona, which ruled that the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence brought against a defendant at trial is only admissible if the defendant has been informed of his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to consult with an attorney. This Supreme Court decision was brought about by the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who provided a confession to police without being informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. The Arizona State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that because he had not been informed of his rights, his rights had not been properly upheld. The key to this decision is the distinction between an informed waiving of those rights, and an uninformed waiving of those rights. If a person is convicted based on self-incrimination, the prosecution must be able to prove that they were explicitly aware of and subsequently waived their rights.…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He appealed his case all the way up to the Supreme Court, claiming that the confession had been obtained unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not use Miranda’s confession as evidence because the police had not informed Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right against…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays