Fare V. Arizona 1979

Improved Essays
Show More
In the case of Fare v. Michael C. (1979), the United States Supreme Court rejected the California Supreme Court’s position that a juvenile's request to see his probation officer constitutes an invocation of the right to remain silent within the context of Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

Sixteen year old Michael C. was taken into custody by the Van Nuys, California police department on suspicion of murder. After being advised of his Maranda rights, and acknowledging he understood them, he was asked if he wanted an attorney. His response was, “Can I have my probation officer here?” (Page 442 U. S. 710). The police told him they could not get ahold of him and he had the right to an attorney. After further discussion regarding the attorney and probation officer, Michael C. stated, “Yeah I want to talk to you" and made incriminating statements and sketches (Page 442 U. S. 711).

The issue at hand is not whether the statements were voluntary, but rather, was his request to see his probation officer a per se invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, and did the California Supreme Court interpret Miranda to broadly? The California Supreme Court previously …show more content…
Supreme Court, in reviewing the standard set in Miranda, held that a “[l]awyer occupies a critical position in our legal system because of his unique ability to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of a client undergoing custodial interrogation. Because of this special ability of the lawyer to help the client preserve his Fifth Amendment rights once the client becomes enmeshed in the adversary process, the Court found that "the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system" established by the Court. Id. at 384 U. S. 469. “Moreover, the lawyer's presence helps guard against overreaching by the police and ensures that any statements actually obtained are accurately transcribed for presentation into evidence.” Id. at 384 U. S.

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Durango 7 D-Pod Swot Analysis
    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Durango 7 D-Pod Swot Analysis

    I read Inmate Mankel his rights from a standard Issue MCSO Miranda Rights card. I asked if he understood his rights, and he replied, “Yes.” I asked if he would voluntarily answer my questions. He stated, “Yes.” I asked Inmate Mankel what happened in the restroom.…

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Fare V. Michael C Case Study
    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Fare V. Michael C Case Study

    Introduction In this paper, I will discuss the key facts, issues, and court holdings of the Fare v. Michael C. case. Discussion The Fare v. Michael C. case was heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1979, following an appeal referencing the Miranda Warnings issued to the juvenile defendant (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). At the time of the arrest in February 1976 in Van Nuys, California, the suspect, Michael C., was just over sixteen years old (FindLaw, n.d.)…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Decent Essays

    Salinas Vs Texas Summary
    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Salinas Vs Texas Summary

    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
    Read More
  • Decent Essays

    Texas Vs Salinas Case Study
    • 392 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Texas Vs Salinas Case Study

    (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
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    The Hallmark Case Of Gideon V. Wainwright
    • 1252 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The Hallmark Case Of Gideon V. Wainwright

    This case questioned the Sixth Amendment 's extension of the right to counsel in state criminal felony cases. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right to counsel and argued that it extended to all cases. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark argued that the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel in order to protect due process. The Gideon v Wainwright case was as milestone decision in which the Constitution was interpreted very…

    • 1252 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Public Safety Exception Case Study
    • 572 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Public Safety Exception Case Study

    Under the public safety exception, where officers engage in a custodial interrogation before Miranda warnings, and if reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety or the safety of the arresting officers, a suspect’s statements are admissible as evidence. (New York v. Quarles (1984) 476 U.S. 656 (holding that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination).) In essence, an officer must have a reasonable need to protect the public or themselves from immediate danger. Id. Moreover, the applicability of the public safety exception is not dependent upon the subjective motivation of the questioning officer.…

    • 572 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    The Case Of Gideon Vs. Wainwright
    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Case Of Gideon Vs. Wainwright

    Miranda’s appointed lawyer Alvin Moore filed his appeal and in it stating that Miranda was never told about his right to counsel. When getting arrested, the accused has the right to be informed by the law (cops) that they are privileged to talk to an attorney before questioning and after it as well. Also, the accused has the right to not expose his self before the police start questioning. Finally, to make sure the accused understands them and can overlook it anytime. For this reason the court overruled his…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Supreme Court Dbq Analysis
    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Supreme Court Dbq Analysis

    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
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Analysis
    • 1454 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Gideon Vs Wainwright Case Analysis

    It is well understood in today’s society that every person charged with a crime is entitled to the counsel of an attorney, regardless if the defendant can afford an attorney or not. Prior to the landmark decision of Gideon v Wainwright (1963), indigent defendants charged in state courts were not guaranteed the right to counsel. In 1942, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of counsel is not a “fundamental right,” and, therefore, is not essential to a fair trial in ¬Betts v. Brady (1942). The Betts reasoning, while stating that Betts’ case was fundamentally fair, created a special circumstances rule. If the courts found that a defendant was at a serious disadvantage, possibly because of the defendant’s lack of intelligence,…

    • 1454 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Decent Essays

    Robinson V. California Case Study
    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Robinson V. California Case Study

    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
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Jailhouse Informants Case Study
    • 1381 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Jailhouse Informants Case Study

    This brings the current issue to light, which is the use of Jailhouse informants and questions as to whether the use of such practices is in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to council. The Orange County District Attorney’s Office along with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department have been under heavy scrutiny lately over allegations of evidence obtained in their use of jailhouse informants in criminal trials is a violation of the accused’s right to due process. This has led to the Department of Justice being called in to investigate such allegations and a committee being created by District Attorney Tony Rackauckas to evaluate his office’s use of jailhouse informants (Ferner, 2015). “Orange County prosecutors’ ‘win at all costs’…

    • 1381 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment
    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Fifth Amendment

    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
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Judicial Summary: Miranda V. Arizona
    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Judicial Summary: Miranda V. Arizona

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Gagnon Vs Scarpelli Case Study
    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Gagnon Vs Scarpelli Case Study

    Gerald Scarpelli was the defendant in the case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli. A felon who was out of jail on probation prior to his arrest for burglary. Due to Scarpelli’s arrest for burglary, he admitted to the crime and his probation was revoked by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for violation of his probation conditions. A habeas corpus was filed two years later by Gerald Scarpelli with the District Court, because he sat in jail without a revocation hearing nor right to an attorney, denying him due process. The District Court held that Scarpelli’s Constitutional right of due process was indeed violated, however, an appeal was filed by the warden, John Gagnon, of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, but Courts of Appeals affirmed Scarpelli’s…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Juvenile Offenders Case Study
    • 377 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Juvenile Offenders Case Study

    The custodial questioning of juvenile offenders is a controversial topic, and most states possess varying laws on how to proceed with juvenile questioning. Additionally, juvenile offenders processed differently based upon police department policies and procedures and the juvenile codes of the state (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). For instance, some police departments require parents be present at the station prior to questioning a juvenile offender (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, regardless of age, Miranda v. Arizona applies custodial interrogations, but the issue that arises specifically with juvenile offenders is their capacity to fully comprehend their Miranda rights (Elrod & Ryder, 2014).…

    • 377 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?
Discover
Company
Follow
©2024 Cram.com
Privacy Policy |  About Ads |  Site Map |  Advertise  | 
  • Cookie Settings