Forensic Science: The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

The case involved an individual by the name of Danny Escobedo, who was arrested on January 19, 1960, for the murder of his brother-in-law. Escobedo was arrested without a warrant and interrogated; he did not make any statement to the police and was released after contacting his lawyer. On January 30, Benedict DiGerlando, told the police about Escobedo’s involvement in the crime that Escobedo “had fired the fatal shots” (Escobedo v. Illinois- Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court, 1999, pg.2). He was later arrested a second time and taken to the police headquarters. Soon enough Escobedo requested to have “advice from my lawyer”

Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.

The police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The police had Ernesto Miranda write out his confession of rape and kidnapping. They did this before informing Miranda about having his lawyer present or having the right to remain silent. Ernesto's written confession was then used against him at his trial (Miranda v. Arizona | Law Case). The signed confession was acquired without warning because of this he self incriminated himself.

The brazen police misconduct in violating an individual's Sixth Amendment right to counsel warranted dismissal of the confession; there no mere technicality or question of Couey's invocation of his right to counsel as he requested a lawyer "eight times in 46 seconds" (Associated Press, 2006).

Paragraph #2: The Law and Legal Questions The Fifth Amendment is “No person told you held To answer for a capital, or otherwise Infamous crime”. It means that no person can be forced to speak whatsoever. When Miranda was arrested the police were supposed to inform him about his two rights (Right to keep quiet and write for a lawyer) (United States Courts, 2017)

On January 31, 1976, Miranda was released from prison, there was a violent bar fight, and he received a stab womb and pronounced dead at the

From the interrogation, Miranda accepted to have committed the crime and the police took both written and audio evidence from the suspect’s confession. The other three individuals that were presented in the case included Vignera, Westover and Stewart who were exposed to similar experiences as to that of Miranda. Each of the four individuals was engaged in a private interrogation by the police, where each of the suspects admitted to have committed the crimes. That may have been a result of police intimidation that made the suspects to admit to false allegations.

Through the disclosure of rights and encouragement of legal counsel, Miranda warnings provide a suspect with the opportunity to have legal representation to help protect them from unintentional or involuntary confessions. Legal representatives can provide protection against deceitful interrogation and potential violations of their rights. The second reason I support the argument is that Miranda V. Arizona prevents susceptible individuals from being influenced by forceful or deceitful interrogation tactics that aim to manipulate suspects into providing information or confessions. In many situations, police officers and other law enforcement officials will attempt to lie and manipulate a detainee into providing information.

Although in this case, Escobedo confessed his crime before his rights were stated to him, therefore, "... no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial," (ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS) which caused his confession overthrown by the court. In addition, this case is interesting to me because I believe it was fascinating how the accused murderer, Escobedo, was able to get away with his crime simply because his Miranda Rights were not stated to him before he confessed and was denied his right to counsel which was the police department's

However, the opposing counsel argued that Miranda was familiar to police procedures and willingly signed the written confession. Miranda’s conviction was consistent with Arizona law and his trial was

One of the most influential judges of his time, Earl Warren was born on March 11th, 1891 to a Norwegian immigrant. Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles, California. He grew up in Bakersfield and attended the School of Jurisprudence of the University of California at Berkeley for his education. During these years, Warren worked as a law clerk, where he assisted local judges in writing legal determinations and opinions. The occupation granted him experience in the field of law as well as financial stability.

The entire process, from arraignment to sentencing, probably only took about five minutes. The latter, a rare occasion where a defendant chose to self-represent himself, had an entirely different outcome. At the sentencing, the judge once again had offered legal counsel, only to be refused by the defendant. He had been found guilty by the jury after deliberating for just under an hour. Charges included possession of cocaine, resisting arrest without violence, possessions of paraphernalia, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The sixth amendment gives any citizen in the United States of America, the rights to a legal counsel when accused of a crime. When Ernesto was arrested and was interrogated for over two hours, he was never told once about his rights to an attorney. Then it allowed the police to receive a confession out of him to use in court, which also valuated the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment say that a person can not be a witness to themselves, which means that Ernesto confession was not valid evidence to us in court.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote this : “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” The court set aside his conviction. After a second trial, Miranda 's confession from the previous trial were thrown out. However he was convicted again and was sentenced up to thirty years in federal prison. Once he was released on probation, a violent fight broke out at a local Phoenix, Arizona bar which left a lethal knife wound which killed him.

He confessed he committed rape and kidnapping during his year in LA, the victim was 17 years old by that time she got kidnapped by Ernesto.