Compare Miranda Vs. Arizon The Right To Remain Silent

Decent Essays
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law.” The right to remain silent helps protect the accused from confessing anything about the crime without a lawyer present. In the (Miranda. v. Arizona.) 1996, case Ernesto Miranda did not know the rights he had and had confessed to the crime. The right to remain silent protects the person from saying anything that could be used against them in court. The accused has an option to not gives answers that might be used against them in the court of law when the police are questioning them.

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Summary Of In Re Gault

    • 170 Words
    • 1 Pages

    These rights include the notice of the charges, the right to have counsel, the right to confront and question witnesses, and the protection from self-incrimination. At the close of the…

    • 170 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court requires criminal suspects to invoke their right to remain silent with a statement. If a suspect remains silent or won't cooperate during a interrogation session, this is no longer enough to stop any further questioning by law enforcement officials. Warden vs Thompkins is a case that shows “how the provisions of Miranda have been chiped away at” Warden vs Thompkins involved the case of Van Chester Thompkins, who was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. Thompkins was read his Miranda rights, and given an form that he wouldn't sign. After remaining silent for three hours, an officer asked, "Do you believe in God?" and "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down Thompkins answered…

    • 276 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Salinas Vs Texas Summary

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The general rule is that a witness must invoke the privilege to benefit from it and virtually everyone is acquainted with the concept, even the uneducated and the young. The court discerned that by agreeing to non-custodial pre-Miranda police interview without expressly stating his intentions of invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the petitioner forfeited such privileges. It was an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s interview by police was voluntary and he resumed answering questions after the period of silence, further indicating he was not invoking Fifth Amendment…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    (Alito, Salinas v Texas, 2012) Holding: The Judgment is affirment Rationale/Reason: The reason of this case concerns whether the prosecuting attorney may have used the defendant’s silence throughout pre-arrest , using pre-Miranda questioning as practical evidence of his guilt. Salinas put up a good argument that his Fifth Amendment right were violated by the Supreme Court because they should have over turn his guilty verdict because of the fact the Court of Criminal Appeals and lower Texas courts used evidence of silence throughout pre-arrest, pre-Miranda questioning. (Alito, leranlebertyedu,…

    • 392 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent 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
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment says that no one can be accused of a crime unless a grand jury decides that there is enough evidence to charge a person for a crime in court. The defendant has a choice to testify or not to testify. If they choose to testify, the defendant loses his Fifth Amendment privilege and must answer the questions asked. However, at the trial the defendant who has been called to the witness stand by the grand jury can refuse to answer certain…

    • 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

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 594 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The ruling of the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona helped justify the full knowledge of legal and citizen rights that a defendant has in court. The case aided both the detained suspects and police officers/suspects with the defendants being aware of what rights they have while their under custody while legal authority knew and recited what they have to say to an individual that place in…

    • 594 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Before 1966 there was really no right or warning that protected the people and told them what they were entitled to. As we all must have heard "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". This famous warning was created because of the well-known case known as Miranda vs. Arizona. In which Ernesto Miranda from Arizona was convicted of various crimes but was let free.…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda Rights help protect citizens fifth and sixth amendments. The fifth amendment protects citizens from being forced to be witness against himself, while the sixth amendment assures that those arrested have a right to a public and speedy trial (Doc E). Together, the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination and the sixth amendment assures that those arrested can not be held in jail indefinitely. The Miranda Warning read by officers specifically states that after one is made aware of their Miranda Rights, any confession or statements can be used against oneself lawfully (Doc J). Consequently, the Miranda ruling assures that one is fully aware of their rights and are also aware of the consequences if they choose to self-incriminate after being read their…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Longley (N.D) to protect yourself from giving a false confession one can plead the Fifth Amendment right. (A) The first step in preventing a false confession after being Mirandized is to tell the authorities that I wish to remain silent until I have an attorney present. (B) the second step would be to inform the authorities that my attorney advised me not to talk with the authorities during his or her absent to protected myself from self-incrimination. 2.…

    • 633 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Things such as, you have the right to, To remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. You haves this rights.…

    • 513 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
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Rights Outline

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages

    “Freeze! put your hands up”. The purpose of the Miranda rights is to safeguard the Constitutional rights of each citizen of the United States of America. The fifth amendment of the Constitution in particular protects the person from incriminating themselves. Imagine if you got arrested and the fifth amendment is not read to you. “Have you been to jail?…

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The right to not to testify against oneself is one of the few parts that make up the fifth amendment. This is also known by many as the right against self-incrimination. This right allows for people to refuse to against themselves during a trial unless there is obvious evidence against the person being trialed. Authority figures, like police officers or judges, aren’t able to forcibly disclose any information concerning the person who is…

    • 344 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays