Research Paper On Miranda Vs Arizona

Brief Arizona v. Hicks 480 U.S. 321 (1987) Facts: A bullet was fired through the floor of Hick’s apartment on April 18th, 1987. The bullet injured a man in the apartment below Hick’s apartment. Police officers arrived at Hick’s apartment to investigate the shooting. Upon investigating, the police officers seized 3 weapons and a stocking mask. Also, while investigating, one of the police officers noticed expensive stereo equipment.

In Arizona, relocation of a minor child when there is a written agreement or court order between two parents (both residing in the state of Arizona), is regulated by Arizona Revised Statute 25-408. In most cases, application of this statute’s regulations becomes necessary when one parent wishes to relocate with the minor child out of state. In some cases, such as Thompson v. Thompson, the statute can be cited in relation to relocation within the state of Arizona. A Brief History of the Case: Thompson v. Thompson:

The men pleaded not guilty but were accused of rape that same day. For the first time, via the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment reached the state levels as a result of Gideon vs. Wainwright. The Fourteenth Amendment included “the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures” (Cornell Law). This required Alabama’s defendants to be appointed attorneys for their cases.

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.

Later he got 20 to 30 years in prison for assaulting and armed robbery. Later his lawyer appealed to the United States Supreme Court of Arizona asking if he was given the rights while being arrested. On June 13, 1966 their appeal was accepted and the court agreed on hearing him because as it turns out he was interrogated for 2 hours without knowing that he has the right to remain silent (5th Amendment) (United States Courts, 2017), and the right for a lawyer (6th Amendment). “Miranda v. Arizona” was called that because the police made a mistake and it was the police of Arizona which made it go farther to the Supreme Court which is bigger that's why the state counts. (United States Courts, 2014).This is why the case began.

United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue of the case was that It exceeded to the power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity. The case United States v. Lopez involved Alfonzo Lopez Jr., Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Congress. Unites States v. Lopez was about a 12th grader named

Argument Analysis: The article“ Alito’s Attack on Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than it Seems” written by Mark Stern, a senior writer who focuses on law and court, discusses the potential issues that may arise from Justice Alito's opinions and the Supreme Court's decision to take steps towards overruling Miranda v. Arizona. The conservative majority ruling in the Vega v. Tekoh decision resulted in a court ruling to declare that suspects who are being taken into custody no longer have the conditional right to be read their Miranda rights. Stern argues that this decision reduces the safeguards and protection against involuntary confessions, reduces the potential assistance for wrongly convicted inmates, and is likely to result in further attacks

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.

The outcome of this case made sure that every person who was arrested and put under the custody of the police had to read their Miranda rights and therefore made known of their Fifth Amendment rights. This case would change the procedure of every legal arrest from that point on, and ensure that any person under the custody of the police would be fully aware of their

¬ What private property can be taken? ¬ What shall be the reimbursement for the private property taken? This amendment is also very important to police work because the Miranda Rights are based off the 4th and 5th amendment. It also brings up the question of what police can do if a suspect is not talking or giving information at all.

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.

So, in many, if not most, of the cases, the accusers and the accused were unacquainted. Boyer and

I determined these questions by thinking about what professional profilers might ask if they were studying this crime as

During the trial I assumed he was given bail, as the level of security did not seem as high as it might be, should he be in custody. Specifically, When Judge Levy suggested to adjourn for a lunch break, he advised the accused that he was allowed to go for in the public area, as there was no jury and all witnesses were interviewed. The decision of bail can be made on the basis that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, on the basis of the crime, and on the best interest of the state’s resources. Considering the burden of proof was on the Defense (as discussed in the ‘statement of the defense’ below), and that many believe ‘certain types of offenders such as drug dealers (…) ought to be denied bail in all circumstances’ , it is surprising that Judge Levy came to this