Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

Miranda’s attorney appealed to the U.S Supreme Court which were going to hear his case. In the Trial Court a counsel was appointed to defend him in the robbery and rape and kidnapping case. Identify the issue (IRAC): Was it the officers right to inform the suspect of his 5th and 6th amendment before interrogating him?

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney.

Facts: In this case, a 23-year-old man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix, Arizona, and taken to the police station for questioning about a rape and kidnapping. The police questioned him for two hours, and were able to get a written confession out of Miranda. The confession was used in court as evidence during the trial. Miranda was found guilty of rape and kidnapping and was sentenced between twenty to thirty years in prison for each count. The Arizona Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and Miranda’s case was sent to the U.S Supreme Court.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was a case that was brought to the United States Supreme Court through a Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona. At the Trial Court of Arizona the written confession of Ernesto Miranda was admitted as evidence and the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the case. Id. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Id. Issue: Was the constitutional right of the V amendment that protects against self-incrimination violated in Ernesto Miranda’s case?

Due to the fact of not being read his rights the Fifth and Sixth Amendment was created. Since the Miranda V. Arizona case has been adopted the way U.S. government has helped mold the nation’s justice system by introducing the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. In March of 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, a resident by the name of Ernesto Miranda sexually assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed an eighteen year old woman as she was on her way home from her usual bus stop. Just days after the incident, the victim reported the events which unfolded that night to the Phoenix police department.

Miranda v. Arizona Bashlor, 1 Miranda v. Arizona: Rights of the Accused Lauren Bashlor Liberty High School AP Government 3AB The U.S. Supreme Court?s compromise in the Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court case referred to three different court cases aside from Miranda v. Arizona case. Each of the three different court cases involved the rights of the accused individuals (U.S Courts, 2015a). Miranda v. Arizona court case dealt with an individual being accused of kidnapping and raping a young woman. Miranda had been questioned and interrogated by the police, he also confessed and signed a written confession during the interrogation, without being read his rights and especially his right to a lawyer and if he could not afford one then one would be given to him (U.S Courts, 2015b). Miranda v. Arizona established that an individual being accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and anything you say can be used against you in the court of law.

The party of Arizona argued that his rights had never been violated, thus making his confession valid. They stated that, Miranda had signed off on the confession, therefore he was fully aware of his rights and decided to wave them. I believe that the most persuasive point made in this case is the fact that you cannot use information obtained by not informing a person of their constitutional rights in trial because if it weren’t for their lack of awareness they may not have received the intel in the first

Landmark Supreme Court Case – Miranda v. Arizona As stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (School). Police officers work non-stop, around the clock to only detain, arrest, and covict criminals. The restrictions of abusing victims rights have been part of the United States since the Bill of Rights but this view changed in the 1960s. Due to the fact that crime was rising in the 1960s, public satefy was becoming more of a concern so officers needed a method to reduce crime in the public.

According to History,” A statement obtained without compliance with these rules is inadmissible as is the fact that a defendant has chosen to exercise the right to remain silent ‘in the face of accusation.’” (History). This case originated in Arizona, argued on February 28, 1966 and decided on June 13, 1966. The “majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Warren and joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan and Fortas” (United States Courts). The dissenting opinion were “Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White” (United States Court).

The police officers told Miranda that he was not obligated to have an attorney present. After two hours of being in custody he signed a statement admitting that he knows the full knowledge of his right and anything from the statement can be used against him. His statement went to a jury at his trial where he was found guilty and was sentenced to prison. The Arizona supreme court did not think that Miranda’s rights were

The Miranda Rights, are well known to most of the public. So you wouldn’t think that you need to ask for them. The fifth amendment, read during the Miranda Rights, is that a suspect has the right to not self incriminate. In the case of Salinas, he thought he was pleading the fifth, but was surprised that really he was just admitting guilt. Genovevo Salinas, was sitting in silence when being interrogated, assuming that the police knew he was pleading the fifth.

Both courts affirmed the lower court’s judgment and rejected Salinas’ claim that his silence was used in chief violation of the Fifth Amendment. Issue: Can one fairly conclude that an individual who agreed to be questioned has revoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection? Was Salinas’ silence a true exercise of this amendment? Rule: The petitioner must specifically call on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the time he relies on it in order to receive the benefit. Decision: Salinas’ claim fails because he did not verbally invoke this Fifth Amendment privilege in his response to the officer’s questions.

A significant ruling that established the constitutional rights of criminal defendants was Miranda v. Arizona. The criminal law and procedure in the United States have been significantly impacted by this case. This event occurred in Phoenix, Arizona in 1996 and lasted from February 28 to June 13, 1966. This lawsuit was brought before the Arizona State Superior Court. Arizona is the defendant in this lawsuit, and Miranda is the plaintiff.

The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing

The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.