Judicial Summary: Miranda V. Arizona

Superior Essays
J. Cecelia Shaulis
April 13, 2015
Pols-Y 211
Dalecki
Exam 3- Miranda v. Arizona One of the biggest players in law interpretation and policy-making is the judiciary system. While the other two branches of government have some control over the judiciary system through checks and balances, the federal courts have a great deal of power in the form of judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. This means that they can declare federal laws unconstitutional, overrule themselves in previous decisions, and shape public policy. However, there is disagreement over this policy making power which is prominently demonstrated in the debate over judicial activism versus judicial restraint in court
…show more content…
Arizona in 1966. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for various serious crimes. He was not informed of his rights before the police interrogation in which he supposedly gave a recorded confession to the crimes. He also did not have a counsel present. Miranda was found guilty of his crimes solely on the basis of his confession. 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 …show more content…
Arizona can also be put into the frame of judicial activism. The Supreme Court created a new law, bypassing the elected legislative branch of government, in order to protect the rights of the accused. The law that requires police to read the defendant the “Miranda Rights” not only helps to protect the defendant from self-incrimination under duress, but it also reduces police violence and other forms of intimidation that could lead to a false confession. The new law protects the rights of the accused and changes the behavior of the police towards arrests and interrogations, reconciling growing police powers with individual basic

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

    Cameron Awbrey Case

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Supreme Court case Thompson v. Keohane established two inquiries to determine whether a person was in custody: the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and whether a reasonable person would have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. In this case, the conversation held between the defendant and the police officer was not considered an interrogation as the officer was unaware his remarks would elicit an incriminating response. In the Supreme court case Rhode Island v. Innis, a conversation that took place between police officers in front of the defendant did not constitute an interrogation under Miranda. An interrogation for Miranda purposes refers to any words or actions that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. In Rhode Island v. Innis, the police officers were not aware their conversation would be susceptible to the defendant, similar to the case today.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The supreme court justices Samuel Alito answered to this case that Mr. Salina didn't have the right to remain silent. Mr. Salina was free to leave, which didn't insert his Miranda rights and he had therefore no right to remain silent. Justices Samuel Alito stated that Mr. Salina´s should have affirmatively invoked his rights, because without Mr. Salina´s having a lawyer or being told the Miranda rights he should have been more affirmative about his invoking. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html) Salinas v. Texas is demonstrating the Miranda rules in a way where if the rules doesn´t apply the questioned from the beginning the Miranda rights doesn't apply either.…

    • 757 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Since Miranda v. Arizona (1956) the Supreme Court watered down the protection of suspects during interrogation in several ways. The Miranda warnings weakened when courts decided they were not Fifth Amendment rights (Hemmens, 2014). Miranda warnings weakened when Courts ruled that police violations are inadmissible and does not apply to evidence obtained through Miranda violated interrogations. In addition, the courts ruled that not all parts of the Miranda warnings need to be read to suspects. One of the most damaging Miranda warnings were weakened when courts decided that if a confession was made through an interrogation that violated Miranda rules, the confession is admissible once the suspect Miranda rights were properly read (Hemmens, 2014, p. 28).…

    • 396 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved 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
  • Improved Essays

    Did law enforcement officer violate Mr. Miranda Constitutional Rights of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? Should confessions or statements attained from a suspect interrogated…

    • 639 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the early 1960’s four men were arrested on different crimes.. In the police department those men confessed to their crimes without ever being told their rights, mainly that the Fifth Amendment Sixth Amendment. The confessions were used in court, and it became a question of whether those men’s constitutional rights had been violated. The question was answered in the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona.…

    • 1601 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Fare V. Arizona 1979

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    2012 Dbq Analysis

    • 872 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In contrast, the government made more considerable efforts to reshape American democratic ideals. During this time, the government had the ability to enact changes as reactions to the objectives of other groups seeking to redefine these ideas, however, it often recognized the lack of social and economic equality for all groups and approached reform during this era broadly so that many minority groups became democratically equal to the majority. For example, many politicians recognized the need for new policies and thus directed their political agenda to conceiving and instituting such legislation. According to Robert F. Kennedy in his speech announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President, he recognized that the United…

    • 872 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Arizona was a case that changed the procedures on arresting anyone. Individuals that have been arrested for suspicion on committing a crime, have rights that must be explained to them prior an officer asking them any questions. Those rights are designed for the person being arrested so they wont self incriminate under the 5th…

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The infringement of Miranda’s rights by the police granted Miranda the right to appeal and challenge the verdict rendered in the initial case. On appeal, Miranda’s lawyer pointed out how the police failed in their role of informing Miranda of his right to remain silent, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. The landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in 1966 pivoted in favor of the defendant by a majority ruling of 5 – 4. The broad ruling held the police at fault for not exercising proper principles of interrogation, highlighting the need for law enforcement officers to make specific points clear to a suspect before questioning (Bloom…

    • 637 Words
    • 3 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