Miranda V. Arizona Essay

668 Words Nov 21st, 2012 3 Pages
Court Brief
Miranda v. Arizona Citation: Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart, Supreme Court of the United States, 1966.
Issue: Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants.
Relief Sought: Miranda was violated the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule that states all evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court and the Gideon rule that states that all felony defendants have the right to an attorney
…show more content…
Dissenting Opinions: Justice Tom Clark argued that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution would apply to interrogations. There is not enough evidence to demonstrate a need to apply a new rule as the majority finds here. The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan also argues that the Due Process Clauses should apply. J. Harlan further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination.
Justice Byron White argued that there is no historical support for broadening the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to include the rights that the majority extends in their decision. The majority is making new law with their holding. Legal Terms: self- incrimination-the act of incriminating oneself or exposing oneself to prosecution, especially by giving evidence or testimony Interrogation- to ask questions of (a person), sometimes to seek answersor information that the person questioned considers personalor secret.
Implications: Miranda v. Arizona established the importance of informing defendants of their legal rights before they are arrested

Related Documents