Deval Shah
Dean Per 8
AP US Gov & Pol
12/28/14
Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court
Civil Rights & Liberties Case
Title and Citation:
Miranda v. Arizona
2. The facts of the case: The Court had to consider the constitutionality of several cases, all considered together, in which defendants were not given freedom while being questioned. In Miranda v. Arizona, a poor man was charged for rape and questioned by the police for two hours. He was not informed of his rights of self-incrimination or assistance of an attorney. In Vignera v. New York, a man was questioned by police without being notified of his right to counsel. In a similar situation, Westover v. United States, a man was arrested and questioned by the FBI also without being notified of his right to counsel. In yet another case, California v. Stewart, local police questioned a man for five days again without notification of his right to counsel. In all of the cases stated, suspects were questioned by various …show more content…
This ensures that only statements freely made by a defendant can be used in court. They observed that “the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented,” giving custodial interrogations by the police as an example. The police must ensure that defendants are aware of their rights before they are questioned, backed up by the Fifth Amendment. They also decided that any statements made by defendants during a custodial interrogation in which the defendant has not been read his “Miranda rights” do not count in any court. Although, Justice Harlan, in the dissent, argued that the newly created rules did not protect against coercion, police brutality, or other abuses of authority during interrogations. He called the new rules “a hazardous experimentation”.
7.
Dean Per 8
AP US Gov & Pol
12/28/14
Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court
Civil Rights & Liberties Case
Title and Citation:
Miranda v. Arizona
2. The facts of the case: The Court had to consider the constitutionality of several cases, all considered together, in which defendants were not given freedom while being questioned. In Miranda v. Arizona, a poor man was charged for rape and questioned by the police for two hours. He was not informed of his rights of self-incrimination or assistance of an attorney. In Vignera v. New York, a man was questioned by police without being notified of his right to counsel. In a similar situation, Westover v. United States, a man was arrested and questioned by the FBI also without being notified of his right to counsel. In yet another case, California v. Stewart, local police questioned a man for five days again without notification of his right to counsel. In all of the cases stated, suspects were questioned by various …show more content…
This ensures that only statements freely made by a defendant can be used in court. They observed that “the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented,” giving custodial interrogations by the police as an example. The police must ensure that defendants are aware of their rights before they are questioned, backed up by the Fifth Amendment. They also decided that any statements made by defendants during a custodial interrogation in which the defendant has not been read his “Miranda rights” do not count in any court. Although, Justice Harlan, in the dissent, argued that the newly created rules did not protect against coercion, police brutality, or other abuses of authority during interrogations. He called the new rules “a hazardous experimentation”.
7.