Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

Superior Essays
Miranda vs Arizona
By Bryan Lundgren In this project, I will find out some of the background, information, and the decision behind the Miranda vs. Arizona Supreme Court Case in 1966. I think before I go into the Supreme Court case and decision, I think it is important to know the reason why the case made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. In March 13th, 1963 the court case began with the arrest of a Phoenix resident named Ernesto Miranda. During this arrest, Miranda was not informed of his rights during the arrest. At the police station, he was identified by the witness. The police then took him to interrogation and was then questioned by two police officers. Two hours later, the officers obtained a written confession signed by Miranda. The statement was a typed paragraph stating that he had made confession voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity from the police. The document also contained that he had full knowledge of his legal rights and that he understood that any statement he made could be used against him. He was allegedly charge with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda had a history of serious mental instability and unfortunately had no counsel present. At his first trial, the prosecution 's case consisted
…show more content…
The three parts of the decision went as followed. The first was the Fifth Amendment privilege (which states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury). In this instance, Miranda was basically compelled to be a witness against himself and his confession was obtained in a way that did not meet the constitutional standards. What was also a large factor to this part of the case was that he was not offered or given the right to an attorney to consult with during the interrogation process with the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda Rights help protect citizens fifth and sixth amendments. The fifth amendment protects citizens from being forced to be witness against himself, while the sixth amendment assures that those arrested have a right to a public and speedy trial (Doc E). Together, the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination and the sixth amendment assures that those arrested can not be held in jail indefinitely. The Miranda Warning read by officers specifically states that after one is made aware of their Miranda Rights, any confession or statements can be used against oneself lawfully (Doc J). Consequently, the Miranda ruling assures that one is fully aware of their rights and are also aware of the consequences if they choose to self-incriminate after being read their…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    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
  • 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
  • Superior Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona is one of the most crucial U.S. Supreme Court cases ever held in the United States. The case causes the Supreme Court to redefine law enforcement procedures before interrogations. The decision that was reached by the Supreme Court addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. All of these cases are similar in the fact that there was a custodial interrogation where the suspect was not properly informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and have a presence of an attorney. Additionally, in all of the cases besides Stewart v. California, the conviction was affirmed without any belief that there was a violation of constitutional rights ("Facts and Case").…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior 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
  • Great Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 1577 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Miranda vs Arizona In the years following Miranda v. Arizona, many changes were made to the verdict. The Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 declared that if a suspect voluntarily confessed to a crime within six hours after his or her arrest, this confession could be used as valid evidence in a trial, even if the suspect had not been informed of his or her Miranda rights. The passage of this act was one of the first major modifications to the initial decision. Additionally, there were many other cases that followed Miranda v. Arizona that altered the Miranda decision.…

    • 1577 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While in interrogation Miranda wrote a confession claiming that he was making the “statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any…

    • 1451 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved 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

    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

    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

    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
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Warnings

    • 413 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In the 1966 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, came one of the most well known court decisions in America, which requires Miranda warning be read to a suspect by law enforcement (Hall, 2014). Miranda warnings regulate interrogations, confessions, and admissions. These are also protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which give people the right from self-incrimination and the right to council respectively (Hall, 2014). The right of self-incrimination is the basis for having the Miranda warnings, which also notify a suspect they are entitled to council (Hall, 2014). Basically, the court said in order to protect suspects right to self-incrimination, the government has to notify that person of their right to remain…

    • 413 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Everyone has heard the Miranda warning before, whether it was from a television show or movie. With that being said, a good majority of citizens don’t really know/understand their rights. If individuals aren’t aware of their rights, they don’t know if/when they are being taken advantage of. Although the Miranda warning clearly states an individuals rights, offenders can still have false confessions. Richard Leo argues that it’s not uncommon for people to make false confessions when talking to investigators and it happens more frequently than not (Leo, 1998).…

    • 1304 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Throughout this process Miranda warning was never implemented upon arrest of the suspect. In this case the rights of the accused should have asked for a lawyer. Refusing to talk does not mean you have something to hide. However, it simply means that you will not be forced into answering any questions, reviewing any documents, or be intimidated by the higher authority which you may not be fully aware of the…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    1. The rationale behind the Miranda decision in my opinion is that accused suspects were held against there own will and were interrogated in a harsh or extreme manner. Where in some cases suspects were tortured to the point where they were force to admit to a incident whether they committed the crime or not just to successfully prosecute. 2. Yes I do believe that…

    • 321 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays