Research Paper On Miranda Rights

Decent Essays
Show More
Even if you have never been arrested, you are probably familiar with Miranda Rights. An attorney will not be able to help suspects avoid punishment for a crime if they are not read these rights, but some evidence may be inadmissible. If you are facing criminal charges and need an attorney in Southaven, MS, turn to Robert Chamoun Law Firm. Here are the answers to three frequently asked questions about Miranda Rights:

What Are Miranda Rights?

In the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, the court mandated that individuals must be advised of their rights regarding legal representation and self-incrimination at the time of their arrest. Suspects have the right to remain silent, as anything they say can be used against them in a court of law.

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case
    • 174 Words
    • 1 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case

    On June 13, the court came to the decision on the Miranda vs. Arizona case saying that all suspects must be told what their rights are before they are arrested. On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was deliberatly interrogated after being arrested for robbery, rape, and kidnap. . However, he was not informed of his rights before being questioned and Miranda confessed to robbery, rape, and kidnap. Mentally unstable and alone, miranda was without an attorney at trial and the prosecution formed their case off of the fact that Miranda confessed earlier. Sentenced with 20-30 years in prison, Miranda tried to convince the Arizona Supreme Court that his confession was given unconstitutionally and it was unfair, but the punishment still remained.…

    • 174 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Supreme Court Case Study: Miranda V. Arizona
    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Supreme Court Case Study: Miranda V. Arizona

    1. What has been the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona on both law enforcement agencies and the court. -The arrested suspect must be told that they have the right to remain silent -The arrested suspect must be told that anything they say may be used against them in court -The arrested suspect must be told they have the right to an attorney with them before any questioning begins -They must be told that if they cannot afford an attorney an attorney can be provided for free -After they are told their rights and the arrested suspect says that they do not want an attorney and is willing to be questioned that they said so willingly and knowingly -The suspect has the right to turn off questioning any time after they have…

    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Samuel Alito's Case Summary
    • 757 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Samuel Alito's Case Summary

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Supreme Court Case: Lisenba Vs. New York
    • 396 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Supreme Court Case: Lisenba Vs. New York

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper
    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

    The Miranda warning includes what rights we have when we are being arrested or interrogated. Police officers or other law enforcement officers must tell a person their Miranda rights during an arrest. After the warning is given to someone being arrested, the person also has the right to speak to an attorney. These rights became a part of the Fifth and Six amendments that already existed in our U.S. Constitution.…

    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona Supreme Court Cases
    • 1601 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona Supreme Court Cases

    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
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay
    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    The right to remain silent is located in Fifth Amendment, and the right to have a presence of attorney is located in the Sixth Amendment of the constitution. The Supreme Court ended up ruling that it was unconstitutional to undertake the interrogation without the warning of the rights secured by the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the court stated that they must protect the individual from the desire to self-incriminate ("Miranda v."). The court created the Miranda Warning which is as follows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Supreme Court Dbq Analysis
    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Supreme Court Dbq Analysis

    Arizona (1966). This decision, generally speaking, defined the rights of the accused after an appeal was made on behalf of Ernesto Miranda. It said, among other things, that each person accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney (Document 7). The tradition of these Miranda rights has become common knowledge in American society, despite the fact that some people believe that they are generally too lenient and often hamper the justice system’s ability to convict guilty criminals of their crimes (Documents 5a & 5b). The Supreme Court has failed to see adequate need for reversal of this decision, despite the dramatic odds that lie in favour of the accused as a result of the decision, and the fact that the victim is often left without help when the offender is not convicted.…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    The Supreme Court ruling of 1966 in Miranda vs. Arizona has had a significant impact on the conduct of law enforcement agencies in the United States to present day. The 5th amendment is a privilege enjoyed by all American citizens providing that no suspected criminal can be forced or compelled to answer any questions unless directed by the relevant grand jury. Ernesto Miranda arrest was on suspicion of having committed a robbery on March 13th, 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, he was neither read his rights nor was he granted the right to counsel. The 23-year-old suspect was unjustly questioned for over two hours resulting in the subsequent confession of not one, but three crimes, robbery, kidnapping and rape earning…

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Rights Dbq Analysis
    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda Rights Dbq Analysis

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Would America Have Thrived Without The Bill Of Rights?
    • 698 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Would America Have Thrived Without The Bill Of Rights?

    Because many citizens do not know their rights, the court enforced that all government officials inform citizens of their right against self-incrimination the 5th Amendment. Also, suspects must be told that they have a right to an attorney their 6th Amendment to protect the rest of the rights a citizen may not be aware…

    • 698 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment
    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Fifth Amendment

    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
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    The Five Amendments
    • 1399 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The Five Amendments

    Whereas the Fourth Amendment uses probable cause to set up if a crime is, has, or is about to occur and an arrest can be made. Then the Fifth Amendment comes into play, with the questioning of a person who has been arrested and the rights to the arrested person, specifically the reading of Miranda Rights. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda’s civil rights from the Fifth and Sixth were found to have been violated during the investigation and following interrogation. The Supreme Court determined that anyone who is in custody and being questioned needs to be read his or her specific rights, which included: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.…

    • 1399 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Judicial Summary: Miranda V. Arizona
    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Judicial Summary: Miranda V. Arizona

    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…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    The People Vs. Larry Flynt Analysis
    • 1543 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The People Vs. Larry Flynt Analysis

    The People vs. Larry Flynt Americans value their freedom, most especially their freedom of speech and how their Constitution protects such freedom. Speeches like hate speech, speech plus, symbolic speech, seditious speech and the like are part of their freedom of speech. For the purposes of this paper, the film to be discussed is The People vs. Larry Flynt. This paper will also discuss the interrelationship between media, identities, and politics depicted in the said movie. Brief Summary of the Film…

    • 1543 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?
Discover
Company
Follow
©2024 Cram.com
Privacy Policy |  About Ads |  Site Map |  Advertise  | 
  • Cookie Settings