Arizona Cardinals

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…

The Fifth Amendment provides citizens with the opportunity to not be a witness in their own trial so that the possibility of self-incrimination is diminished. The self-incrimination clause protects defendants, but can be misconstrued at times as an admission of guilt by the defendant. There are several cases that have had to deal with the issue of self-incrimination, including Salinas v. Texas 570 US __ (2013) and Mitchell v. United States 526 US 314 (1999). Salinas v. Texas 570 US __ (2013)…

Imagine that you accused of a crime that you did not commit. Respond to the items below. Your response should be a ½ page in length. Discuss at least two (2) steps you could take to protect yourself from giving a false confession to the crime. According to Longley (N.D) to protect yourself from giving a false confession one can plead the Fifth Amendment right. (A) The first step in preventing a false confession after being Mirandized is to tell the authorities that I wish to remain silent…

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987). In Hicks, the officers, responding to a shooting, moved a stereo to view and recorded the serial numbers. Id. The Supreme Court held that recording the numbers was allowed, however, what was not reasonable was the…

will be used against you in a court of law". This famous warning was created because of the well-known case known as Miranda vs. Arizona. In which Ernesto Miranda from Arizona was convicted of various crimes but was let free. Due to the fact that he was unaware of his rights at the time, so the court was not able to do anything at the time of his trial. The Miranda vs. Arizona case explored the rights of American citizens because it made them question if Americans have too many rights and were…

Miranda rights originated from Miranda v. Arizona, when the Supreme Court ruled that citizens arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before being interrogated while in police custody (Miranda v. Arizona). If a defendant has not been read their Miranda rights, any statements they make in an interrogation are inadmissible in court (Miranda v. Arizona). The requirement that Miranda rights be read…

Arizona In this case it is very important to know the “Miranda Warnings” which states “anyone has the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and anything that you state can be used against you” (Miranda Warning, 2014). In this case Miranda v. Arizona simply implements that an 18 year old girl was raped at knifepoint. Miranda was taken into custody and was corruptive…

1) The Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona (1966), established a set of procedures required for law enforcement to follow when notifying a suspect of their rights before entering custody or undergoing custodial interrogation (Rennison, C. M., & Dodge M. (2016). Introduction to Criminal Justice: Systems, Diversity and Change [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://webcourses.ucf.edu/courses/1219517/files?preview=58654921). The Miranda Warning is as follows: “You have the right to…

It was a small court room, and the room was filled with all sorts of people. I think there were some that was there for court and some were there to hear someone’s sentencing. There was a banner you could see as you walked in at the front of the room that said” Show up, Be honest, and Try”. To my left of the court room there was a jury box with people in it, I thought there was a trial going on, but actually there were two people in orange and I believe the other people were counselors for…

v. Michael C. (1979), the United States Supreme Court rejected the California Supreme Court’s position that a juvenile's request to see his probation officer constitutes an invocation of the right to remain silent within the context of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Sixteen year old Michael C. was taken into custody by the Van Nuys, California police department on suspicion of murder. After being advised of his Maranda rights, and acknowledging he understood them, he was asked if he wanted an…