Miranda V. Arizona is a case that had a lasting effect on the criminal justice field. The constitutional parameters that emerged due to the Miranda V. Arizona decision fall under the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment provides all citizens of the United States protection from self-incrimination while being questioned by law enforcement officials. The privilege against self-incrimination is an important constitutional provision that gives the suspect the right to decide, at any time, before or during questioning, the right to remain silent and the right to talk to a lawyer while being questioned Erastus-Obilo, B. (2018, May 01).
The Miranda rights also include the sixth amendment which involves the right to counsel and if one can’t be afforded …show more content…
Upon their arrival the suspect, John Smith, has been already under arrest for the robbery and the shooting of a guard. Smith is arrested and placed into police custody, during the ride back to the station Smith says, “I am so sorry, I shot him!” Smith’s statement would be admissible in court because while he was being arrested, he was not being interrogated because he was sitting in the back of a police cruiser. The requirement for Miranda Rights is they must be given before and pertinent questioning or interrogation of the suspect is started Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). My ruling in, of the case, would result in Smith being found guilty to the robbery and the shooting of the guard, due to his confession in the officer’s car. The Miranda V. Arizona case had little influence on my decision-making process because unlike the suspect in the Miranda case, Smith was not being formally …show more content…
It took Regan nearly two weeks to recover and his press secretary, James Brady, who was shot in the head spent the following 28 years in a wheelchair. Shafer, J., Farivar, C., Trickey, E., & Hendershot, H. (2012, November 30) A year following Hinckley’s attack on President Regan, he was found not guilty due to reasoning of insanity. If the Model Penal Code test is applied to the case, Hinckley would have to be found not guilty. Under the Model Penal Code, the defendant is not about to understand the repercussions of their criminal conduct because of a mental condition, they can be found not guilty. The Criminal Defense of Insanity. (n.d.) Since Hinckley was diagnosed with schizotypal personality, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, depression and, schizoid personality disorder, he falls under that insanity defense New York Times (1982, August 10). The Insanity Defense Reform Act became signed into law on October 12th, 1984. The Reform Act of 1984 placed the burden of proof an insanity defense on the defendant. The new law forces the defense to be able to prove that the defendant did not know the repercussions of their actions and had to so presenting convincing and clear evidence. In my opinion, if Hinckley was on trial today, he would be found guilty due to the evidence presented. In a letter Hinckley wrote, he stated that he might be “killed in my
The Miranda rights also include the sixth amendment which involves the right to counsel and if one can’t be afforded …show more content…
Upon their arrival the suspect, John Smith, has been already under arrest for the robbery and the shooting of a guard. Smith is arrested and placed into police custody, during the ride back to the station Smith says, “I am so sorry, I shot him!” Smith’s statement would be admissible in court because while he was being arrested, he was not being interrogated because he was sitting in the back of a police cruiser. The requirement for Miranda Rights is they must be given before and pertinent questioning or interrogation of the suspect is started Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). My ruling in, of the case, would result in Smith being found guilty to the robbery and the shooting of the guard, due to his confession in the officer’s car. The Miranda V. Arizona case had little influence on my decision-making process because unlike the suspect in the Miranda case, Smith was not being formally …show more content…
It took Regan nearly two weeks to recover and his press secretary, James Brady, who was shot in the head spent the following 28 years in a wheelchair. Shafer, J., Farivar, C., Trickey, E., & Hendershot, H. (2012, November 30) A year following Hinckley’s attack on President Regan, he was found not guilty due to reasoning of insanity. If the Model Penal Code test is applied to the case, Hinckley would have to be found not guilty. Under the Model Penal Code, the defendant is not about to understand the repercussions of their criminal conduct because of a mental condition, they can be found not guilty. The Criminal Defense of Insanity. (n.d.) Since Hinckley was diagnosed with schizotypal personality, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, depression and, schizoid personality disorder, he falls under that insanity defense New York Times (1982, August 10). The Insanity Defense Reform Act became signed into law on October 12th, 1984. The Reform Act of 1984 placed the burden of proof an insanity defense on the defendant. The new law forces the defense to be able to prove that the defendant did not know the repercussions of their actions and had to so presenting convincing and clear evidence. In my opinion, if Hinckley was on trial today, he would be found guilty due to the evidence presented. In a letter Hinckley wrote, he stated that he might be “killed in my