What Was Miranda's Argument In The Miranda V. Arizona Case?

The police told him about the statement that the other suspect made. The police and prosecutors informed Escobedo that though he wasn't formally charged, he was in custody and could not leave. They kept him handcuffed and questioned him for fourteen and a half hours and refused his repeated request to speak with his attorney. Escobedo's attorney went to the police station and asked to speak with Escobedo, and he too was denied. A Spanish-speaking officer was left alone with Escobedo and allegedly told him that if he blamed the other suspect for the murder, then he would be free to go.

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.

Case Citation: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Plaintiff/ Appellant State of Arizona, Defendant/ Appellee Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation.

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

In Phoenix, Arizona, March of 1963, an immigrant named Ernesto Miranda was arrested inside his house for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female (Miranda V. Arizona). He was interrogated for two hours before officers brought in the

Stance and Verdict Miranda not being advised of his rights and his written confession led to him being tried twice. Miranda was found guilty by the jury and the Supreme Court of Arizona with them stating that “Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel” (Oyez). Miranda's conviction was then

To ensure that your rights are protected under the United States Constitution, the Miranda warning must be read to you upon an arrest. Danny Escobedo, a 22-year-old murder suspect, was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with a shooting of his brother-in-law, about 11 days prior. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but was released after making no statement and had his lawyer obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. In police custody, Escobedo confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim. He was not advised of his right to remain silent, violating his Fifth Amendment, and police interrogated Escobedo for several hours, while repeatedly denying his request to consult with

In 1966, an influential court case occurred – one that would shape the United States to improve the justice system. Ernesto Miranda was accused for crimes and identified by the victim, after which he was then interrogated. Miranda orally confessed to a crime and signed a written confession; however, he did not request a lawyer, nor was he advised of his right to have one present. Due to the inadequate constitutionality of the situation, Miranda was able to challenge the Supreme Court in this conviction. The ruling in Miranda represents the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise of self-incrimination by offering protection in statements, reinforcing the Fifth Amendment, and the equity of suspects during interrogation.

As Gillard, Rogers, Kelsey, and Robinson (n.d.) states, “Close to five decades after this landmark decision, fundamental questions continue to arise about suspects’ comprehension of these rights.” Two cases in 2010, Florida vs. Powell and Berghuis v. Thompkins showed that there are various ways that these Miranda

Arizona that criminals must be informed of their rights before being prosecuted. Today, this ruling requires that police inform criminals of their right to remain silent, and that anything they say can be used against them in court. These rights, also known as Miranda rights include the criminal’s right to an attorney. If the police do not read a person’s Miranda rights when arresting a criminal, the court judging the case can discard any evidence that the criminal reveals while in police custody since he or she was not informed of their right to remain silent. While the Miranda decision was unpopular at the time, it was critical to ensuring that criminals were being persecuted for the appropriate crime on clear evidence and received the right to a fast and proper

In the case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), Miranda was arrested at his home and taken into custody for questioning. The interrogation lasted for two hours and the complaining witness identified Miranda as the suspect. As a result, Miranda signed a written confession. At trial when the information was presented to the jury, they found Miranda guilty of kidnapping and rape and was charged 20-30 years of imprisonment on each count. Miranda appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Arizona which ruled that his constitutional rights were not violated by obtaining his confession.

The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures

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.