Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

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.

Legal Issue: If police should inform a suspect who is subject to a custodial interrogation of his or her constitutional rights involving self-incrimination and counsel prior to questioning for the evidence obtained to be admissible in court during a trial? (Miranda v. Arizona).

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

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.

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

The justice system changed by this case because, the prosecution may not utilize proclamations, regardless of whether exculpatory or inculpatory, originating from custodial cross examination of the respondent unless it shows the utilization of procedural protections powerful to secure the benefit against self-implication. “The apex of the individual-rights emphasis in Supreme Court decisions was reached in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, which established the famous requirement of a police “rights advisement” of suspects” (Schmalleger, 2018, p. 198). Furthermore the miranda rights are now included in the 5th

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.

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

Before the police interrogation, which lasted two hours, Miranda was not informed of his rights which therefore caused him to be interrogated without an attorney present and it led him to self-incriminate himself. The trial “ consisted solely of his confession” (Alex Mcbride n.d.) which caused the court to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, sentencing him to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda then went to the Arizona Supreme Court appealing that his confession was unconstitutionally obtained and used against him. When the court disagreed he appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where they declared the actions of law enforcement unconstitutional because they violated the constitution's fifth and sixth amendment. Because of this, Miranda's confession could not be admissible in a court of

Arizona was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1966. The argument for the defense was that Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Sixth Amendment Right to legal counsel were evidently violated. The State of Arizona ignored the Escobedo rule, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1964, which states that a statement form a detained suspect in police custody is inadmissible in a court of law unless if the detained suspect is warned of the right to remain silent or the right to an opportunity to have an attorney present, and The Gideon rule, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1963, which permits all suspects of felony the right to an attorney. Inclusive with these violations, Miranda’s confession was obtained illegally and should be dismissed. The verdict was inequitable, and Miranda should receive a new trial.

The legal case of Arizona v. Miranda, which took place in 1966, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that had a profound impact on criminal procedure in the country. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, a man who had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The overall issue of the case was the admissibility of the confession that Miranda had made to the police during his interrogation, which had been obtained without informing him of his constitutional rights. The court ultimately ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence against him, as the police had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This decision led to the creation of what today is known

Arizona examined Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights in detail. The court stressed the coercive character of custodial interrogations and the risk of defendants accidentally waiving their fundamental rights. Suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and have legal representation during interrogations. The court stressed the need to clearly explain these rights to suspects so they can make informed decisions. Miranda's warnings were implemented as procedural safeguards after the analysis.

During the interrogation Stewart admitted that he robbed the decease women but he also stated that he didn't mean to hurt her. After his confession the police than released the other four who was present at the time of Stewart's arrest because their was not enough evidence to hold them. The Miranda law is protected under the Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution. According, to the U.S. Constitution the Fifth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in a criminal case. With the Miranda law while suspects are in custody of the police the must be read four rights before being questioned.

The work of the Rehnquist court were thought to be more conservative and advancing a decrease of legal rights for unlawful suspects, defendants and condemned offenders (Spohn, and Hemmens, 2012). The Rehnquist Courts stance on the right against self- incrimination and the right to remain silent remains the same. Rehnquist voted to reaffirm the court’s 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona based on his thoughts that the totality of the circumstances test being more difficult than Miranda for law enforcement officers to conform to, and for courts to apply in a consistent manner. (Spohn and Hemmens,

Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.