Miranda Vs Arizona Summary

Facts: In the case of Miranda v. Arizona , the court’s decision affected four different cases that pertained to the same issue. There were four cases regarding the defendant 's Fifth Amendment rights were violated these cases were Miranda v. Arizona , Vignera v. New York, and Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart .Of the four cases, three of them had the same issue in that the defendants were arrested and questioned for a crime that led them to confess.However, none of the defendants were aware or told of their 5th amendment right to remain silent until you are given an attorney during questioning. Since they confessed to the crime, the courts convicted, each of the defendants. Each defendant of each case filed and appealed their case to the Court of Appeals. However, in the fourth case of California v. Stewart , the case was a conviction. Although, the courts ruled that the defendant should have been informed of his rights during the interrogation. Nevertheless, all four cases were appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In addition, in all four cases the defendants gave incriminating information to authorities during interrogation without having the prior knowledge of their Fifth Amendment right in which they are entitled to.

Issue: Is it the responsibility for the authorities to tell the alleged defendants of their rights before interrogation? Does the present procedure violate the Fifth …show more content…
Arizona case, Justice Clark dissented and concurred in segments of the majority opinion. He argued that the majority opinion has a lot of restrictions that pertains to a conducting a police interrogation. Moreover, Justice Clark is proud of the police agencies and is in favor of the way they conduct their job. He suggests that the criminal justice system should remain using the rule of “totality -of- circumstances,” this method would rule out any coerced confessions and this should be adamantly practiced by law