Miranda Vs Arizona Case

The conviction was based off of the confession Miranda gave and the eyewitness identification of him by the victim. After Miranda was convicted, he was represented by different lawyers in front of the supreme court and they argued that the police questioning/interrogating without an attorney present violated Miranda’s fifth and sixth amendment rights, and therefore should not be able

After hearing the appeal and analyzing all the facts provided by the petitioner, Miranda, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda and “reversed

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.

Judgment: The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision that was made by Arizona in Ernesto Miranda’s case because no efforts were made by Arizona to inform Miranda about his legal rights before the interrogation took place, thus this makes the interrogation and confession unconstitutional and it should have never been accepted as evidence. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

The 1989 case of Graham v. Connor follows the story of Dethorne Graham, and his interaction with a City of Charlotte police officer, M.S. Connor, and how the actions taken by Connor on the day in question had violated the fourteenth amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses. While police presence and involvement in our communities is vital to the success of a community, the infringement of an individual's rights based upon presumption without reason stands to be an incredible threat to liberty. Connor’s use of excessive force in the detainment of Graham. This case is a strong one for the reform of police protocol, as well as for the protocol for excessive force, and the reasonable person standard. The decision of this case is attributed

When it comes to Seibert the officers used a different technique by actually physically hurting her in order to get information out of her in return, they did, but they also initially withheld her Miranda rights in which she tried to use it against them in court which did not work. Seibert tried to say that because of the technique that was used to

As it states on pg.5 “The person who is in custody and subject to interrogation must be advised of the rights referred to in Miranda v Arizona in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against him or her at trial.”. The state argues that what he said was voluntary and that he was not under interrogation when he made the statement that he did about how much he had to drink. The sixth amendment states that one can’t incriminate oneself outside of Miranda rights. So anything said to the police or that the police have would be invalid because he wasn’t read and asked if he understood his rights. The fourth amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

"Racial Profiling and Criminal Justice." The Journal of Ethics, vol. 15, no. 1-2, 2011. , pp. 79-88. Nclive, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9098-3.

Not to mention all the undocumented people that feel oppressed by officers and scared to talk back to them with a “no”. In chapter two, the author presents a section titled Just Say No. In this section the author illustrates a time where two police officers stopped a bus to search for drugs. Police officers never warned individuals that they had the right to remain silent and, therefore, minorities were trapped and found guilty for carrying drugs. In addition, the book discusses the Florida vs Botsick case that states that people have the right to refuse answering the police.

Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

Like we saw in Just Mercy, the abuse of power of higher officials like police officers, judges and other court officers take advantage of those they swore to protect and have dramatic influence on the outcome of a defendant's rights. The threatening and bribing of Myers procured a false testimony which displays the type of abuse of power that holds high control over the Justice System, “He told us about being pressured by the sheriff and the ABI and threatened with the death penalty if he didn’t testify against McMillian” (pg. 136). These officers and the Alabama Bureau of Investigations persuaded Myer’s too…. Sadly, the abuse of power is very common in the cases that go through our Justice System on a daily basis. Many people in power use it to their advantage to persuade, bribe or take control to influence a trial or the system.

This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all

To be a good interrogator it requires more than confidence and creativity although it does help, but interrogators are very well trained in the mental tactics of social impact. An interrogators task is to get someone to confess to a crime, but it is not easy. While it isn’t easy for them, sometimes they will end up with confessions from the innocent testifies because of the expertise in psychological manipulation interrogators have. The interrogation process has been manipulated over the years and they are using unethical approaches to gain information or a confession from suspects. But in the law of confessions, it is required that confessions are not coerced but be voluntary so that it is admitted into evidence.