John Rea Government Mr. Burke Period 1 The case at hand is Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, the Phoenix police department arrested a man named Ernesto Miranda based on circumstantial evidence that connected him to the kidnap and rape of an 18-year-old girl 10 days earlier, on March 13, 1963. The police questioned him for two hours until he confessed to the crime. He signed a confession saying, "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." During trial, the defense attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that the written statement was not valid in court because Miranda was never told of his right to counsel, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, and was unaware that his statements could be used against him in a court of law. Moore's objection was overruled and because of the evidence and written confession, Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment on each charge. Moore filed Miranda's case to the Arizona Supreme Court claiming that Miranda's confession was not completely voluntary. The written confession was admitted in the Arizona …show more content…
Arizona, Miranda was the plaintiff. The arguments for him were that at the time he was arrested and interrogated, he was not notified that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, and that he had the right to have an attorney present and he would be appointed one if he could not afford one. Essentially, the plaintiff wanted to make sure everyone will always be informed of his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The defendant in this case, the state of Arizona, argued that Miranda still willingly offered his confession to the police, fully aware of his rights due to prior criminal issues he had
Mucolly The Supreme Court settles yet another argument; this time, it is MuCulloch v. Maryland. The end decision helped broaden the roles of the federal government, but not necessarily supplied the government with more power. It also shows that activities that fall into the federal category are taken care of seriously and with a reason.
Miranda’s attorney then requested the Arizona Supreme Court to uphold Ernesto’s conviction. The Supreme Court approved to hear the case of Miranda v Arizona again along with three other cases (Miranda v. Arizona Podcast). The four cases together would clear up any confusion from the Escobedo v Illinois trial that remained. In the first trial Ernesto Miranda did not have a lawyer.
In addition, Arizona claimed that Miranda signed the confession willingly and his conviction was based off Arizona law. Arizona claimed the Supreme Court should uphold its conviction and should not downgrade the work from the
Legal Brief (About 2 pages) Case Name: Case Number: If you like you can copy/paste this for your notes: “Quotation” In Text Citation: Works Cited citation Why this is important/Why I want to use it: Paragraph #1: Facts of the case Ernesto Miranda was born in March (1940) in Mesa, Arizona, he skipped class, often went to a prison for teens after burgering, then later he went to California to join the army and start a new life. On “March 2, 1963”, he pushed an 18 year old woman into the backseat of his car. He drove her for 20 minutes, then he sexually assaulted her and robbed his victim as he did with 3 others. He drove 20 blocks from her house and let her free.
Arizona case is an important case that deals with Miranda given a confession without being stated his rights to him in a way that he could understand them. Miranda was one of many accused individuals that gave a statement without having his rights being read to him. The U.S. Supreme Court set aside Miranda?s confession because it was inquired through an improper interrogation. Arizona retried Miranda, and the confession was not listed as evidence against him, but his wife gave a statement only after he sued for the custody of his daughter. Then he was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison.
Ernesto Miranda was tried for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female. When they brought him in, the girl was not able to positively identify him in a lineup (Miranda V. Arizona). He was then interrogated for two hours by two of the officers that arrested him. At the end of the interrogation, Ernesto wrote and signed a confession (United States Courts). Ernesto was tried in Phoenix Arizona, but his lawyers said that the trial was unfair and that his 5th and 6th amendment rights had been violated due to the fact that Ernesto was never told his rights (Miranda V. Arizona).
In my court case in 1963 Ernesto Arturo Miranda is being accused of kidnapping, and raping. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, saying that the police had gotten his confession unconstitutionally. The U.S Supreme Court review the case in 1966. Chief Justice Earl Warren, said that the confession could not be used as evidence because the evidence was gotten unconstitutionally. Miranda was not told that he had rights like the fifth and sixth amendment so he did not know, that is why the confession was not used as evidence.
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.
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 18-year old woman selected Miranda from a police lineup. She explains that Miranda forced her into his car and drove into the desert. He raped her and later dropped her off near her home. He claimed that his confession was invalid because it was coerced and because the police never advised him of his right to an attorney or his right to avoid self-incrimination. The court overturned Miranda’s conviction, holding that the police must inform criminal suspects of their legal rights at the time of arrest and may not interrogate suspects who invoke their
Landmark Cases . Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | PBS. Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Its impact on interrogations. Kennesaw State University. (n.d.).
Miranda vs. Arizona Introduction The Supreme Court case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) was a significant case for both law enforcement agencies and the citizens of America. This case would be the milestone that changed how law enforcement agencies handled citizens that were being detained for crimes that were committed. The results from this case have been constantly reviewed and gained further information on how the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are interpreted. While this was not the first case that brought up violations of Constitutional Rights, this case would set a standard that future Supreme Court Justices would have to uphold.
Arizona is the largest impact of the Escobedo v. Illinois case. Miranda changed the framework for how the citizen and state, and suspect and police correspond with one another (Crime and Criminal Law 106). According to Crime and Criminal Law, “citizens/suspects now had the right to be told, in a way that they understood, that their rights and person were protected from the abuse of institutional power” (106). Although the public is more familiar with Miranda, Escobedo is the more significant decision. Escobedo established the right for their constitutional rights to be implemented, Miranda created a framework for implying it in that the police must inform the accused of those rights (106).
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.
The constitution also has a set of amendments that are well known called the bill of rights, in view that they mostly deal with rights of the “people” and all citizens of the United States. We as citizens should be aware of our rights in the Constitution. As the ‘’people’’ of America should realize that any of our rights in the Constitution is subjected to frequently understanding by our courts, especially by the United States Supreme Court. The Miranda Rights should and meant to be told to those held in custody, detained.