Case Study Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

Improved Essays
The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case I have chosen to write about is Miranda v. Arizona. This was a case in Arizona where Mr. Miranda was arrested at his home and taken by police into custody to a police station where he was then identified by a complaining witness. Once, he was identified he was interrogated by two police officers for about two hours and as a result to this long interrogation he signed a written confession to the crime. Therefore, once the case went to trial his oral and written confessions were read to the jury. He was then found guilty of kidnapping as well as rape and sentence to 20-30 years’ imprisonment on each count (uscourt.gov. com. n.d.). After being sentenced Mr. Miranda appealed the court’s decision in the Supreme Court of Arizona and they held that his constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession (uscourt.gov. com. n.d.). Although, the Supreme Court of Arizona voted that his rights were not violated Mr. Miranda was not satisfied with their decision and took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the case entered the U.S. Supreme Court they reversed the judgement of the Supreme Court of Arizona based on the Fifth Amendment privilege. They stated in their reversal that this privilege is available outside of court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves (uscourt.gov. com. n.d.). Therefore, the prosecution may not use any statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination (uscourt.gov. com. n.d.). This means that a person has to be in custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way and can now be questioned by a law enforcement officer or what is called custodial interrogation once their Miranda Rights have been read to them because this was made a law after Mr. Miranda case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court did impact the criminal justice policy decision for this case. It made it hard for a police officer to question a person unless they were in custody and had been read their Miranda Rights which were not an issue until this case. Although, there had been a number a people tried before this became a right it still did …show more content…
Police officer would not have to read them their Miranda Rights and when they get to talking about the crime the officer would not have to inform them of any rights and take their statement down which could be later used in court. Although, there may be some trickery behind the way some police receive their confessions as long as it was done legally and to a standard provided by the department and can be proven that there was no type of force used to get the confession the department would maybe solve a lot more crimes. However, if there was some form of force then the confession would not be admissible in court and the entire case could be thrown out of court. Therefore, a lot of criminal would not be too quick to talk about their crimes in front of police officers when they are not in

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    When a law enforcer, such as a police officer, interrogate a suspect, they must inform the suspect about their constitutional rights beforehand. These rights include the right to remain silent and not answer questions, the right to consult an attorney before and during the interrogation, an attorney can be appointed even if one cannot afford it, and that everything the suspect do or say will be used against them in court. Miranda rights are important not only due to the fact that it will protect one’s right against self-incrimination, but it also guarantees that the information that investigators have gathered are legally…

    • 526 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The criminal has the privilege to have a sensible safeguard set for the wrongdoing he or she perpetrated and as indicated by the genuine flight hazard which he or she may force. In 1963 a man known as Ernesto Arturo Miranda was captured of charges he actually admited nightfall of interrigation, and was sentenced, and sentenced 20-30 years. Miranda's court apointed lawyer contended taht he was not educated he has a privilege to insight, and his admission was not volontary. The Arizona Incomparable Court ruled upon this case, and announced that Miranda was unconscious of the rights allowed under the fifth amendent's self implication provision, and the sixth alterations right to a lawyer.…

    • 683 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The case that I have chosen to write about is the very first on the list that we were given to choose from. Brown v. Mississippi that ultimately had the ruling of, “physical coercion violates the Fourth Amendment” (Becker, et al. p. 197). In this case, the defendants were charged with murdering an individual by the name of Raymond Stewart.…

    • 740 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?” This is the Miranda warning or more widely known as the Miranda rights. Police are required to read these rights to anyone they arrest, they are required to under Miranda V. Arizona to protect against self-incrimination. Ernesto Arturo Miranda, who raped, kidnapped, murdered and armed robbed was arrested and convicted after an interrogation where he was not informed of his rights. After that Miranda was taken to court and was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20-30 year.…

    • 843 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Not telling accused persons of their rights is a violation of the constitution. The amendments state: “No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...without due process of law...” “the accused shall enjoy the right to...have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..”…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson was fought between the state of Texas and Gregory Lee Johnson over a right that Johnson claimed to be protected by the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Texas argued that burning the American flag was not an act protected by the 1st Amendment because it causes great dissent and conflict. Johnson argued that its controversial nature is exactly why it is protected by the 1st Amendment; the 1st Amendment was added to the Constitution specifically to protect one’s unpopular opinion. This court case interested me because I found that I had a hard time deciding whether the state of Texas or Johnson was right; the case intrigued me because it made me think. Five years prior to the case, Johnson participated…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He decided to appeal the conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals where Arizona reversed the decision by ruling the search was unconstitutional, and the Arizona Supreme…

    • 418 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA Ernesto Miranda was born March 9, 1941 in Columbus, Arizona. It appears Miranda had a very troubled childhood: “Miranda’s mother apparently died when he was very young (around age 6)” (Blevins). Shortly after Ernesto’s mother died Miranda father reamarried.…

    • 450 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 745 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The court stated in a plurality that a Miranda confession is only acceptable when the confession is given after their rights have been read. That by knowingly breaking up the confession in two parts you are withholding the suspects fifth Amendment right, which grants the individual not to incriminate themselves. Not initially telling the suspect of their right to remain silent and then interrogating the suspect for a confession only then to tell them that they could have not speak if they so wished is depriving basic civil…

    • 745 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Re Gault Case Essay

    • 592 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The first case that stuck out with me the most was the In re Gault case of 1967. This case focused on a youth named Gerald Gault who was 15 at the time of the supposed offense. I feel this kid was railroad from the beginning his rights were violated in many ways. He did not receive the right to counsel, notice of charges, questioning of witness because the witness did not show up for the proceedings, protection against self-incrimination, a transcript of the proceeding, nor and appellate review all these things were denied. www.ncjrs.gov I believe it was important in establishing the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which was violated.…

    • 592 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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
  • 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
  • Decent Essays

    The case posed questions regarding the conduct of an inmate who participated in assisting fellow prisoners in planning the appeals for a writ of habeas corpus and any other legal papers. The amendment in scrutiny was the 28 U.S.C ~ 2242 that violates such prisoner actions. C. 384 US 436 (1966) Miranda v. Arizona Argued 2/28/66; 3/1/66; 3/2/66 Decided Jun 13, 1966 On March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the allegations of rape and kidnapping.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Even in cases where rights have been waived according to the standards of the Miranda decision, it is still possible for a confession to be deemed coerced. Subsequent case law has ruled that continuing to speak to police after being informed of one’s right not to is an implicit waiving of the right to remain silent, and that not explicitly requesting an attorney is an implicit waiving of that right as well. Even so, confessions…

    • 857 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