Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

Decision: Three court cases revered, and one court case affirmed. The court reviewed the writ dealing with the Fifth Amendment and suspects rights during interrogation. In order for a confession to be admissible in court a suspect must be advised of their constitutional rights. Comments: Miranda v. Arizona is considered to be a landmark court case. Its final decision came down to a 5-4 majority vote in favor of the suspects.

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).

Jesus Montoya 4410992 Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Supreme Court of Arizona Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home facing charges of rape and kidnapping. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Once Ernesto Miranda arrived at the police station he was immediately interrogated by two police officers. Id. Miranda was never warned or advised about his right to consult with an attorney prior to the interrogation or to have the attorney present during the interrogation.

On January 31, 1976, Miranda was released from prison, there was a violent bar fight, and he received a stab womb and pronounced dead at the

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 hope to help find the person who raped her that night, the victim told her numerous people, including her brother the description of the vehicle that night she was raped. Eleven days after the investigation, her brother spotted a truck that had the exact same description as what the victim described that night the victim was raped. The truck belonged to a man named Ernesto Miranda. After that, the Phoenix police located Ernesto Miranda at his home, arrested him, and took him down the police station. As of right now, the Phoenix police only have the evidence of Ernesto Miranda being owner of the truck that was described.

Policing was forever changed in 1966 after the deciding factor of the case Miranda vs. Arizona. The case also addressed three other cases involving custodial interrogations, the cases were Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping, and robbery, after he was identified by the victim. Miranda was not informed of his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination, and also his 6th amendment right to have a counsel. Miranda was then interrogated by the Phoenix Police where he was arrested for two hours, and allegedly confessed to the crimes which was recorded by the police.

Anyone who has been arrested before should know their rights therefore no matter what that person had done they are required to read you your rights as you are arrested. But who created the Miranda rights? The Miranda rights were first created by the Supreme Court after a man named Ernesto Miranda was convicted of his crime without his rights read to him. This case Ernesto, he was convicted of kidnapping and raping an eighteen year old ill woman. I disagree with this because of his past crimes along with his new crimes.

In the past, certain principles of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Fourth Amendment changed with each Chief Justice. Between the years 1953 and 2005, there had been three of them, each modifying the main focus and making exceptions to searches and seizures by police. Their names were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Warren E. Burger, and William H Rehnquist. With each alternation of each of them came the names referring to the Supreme Court for those time periods. First, the Warren Court, focused on bringing attention to the exclusionary rule in order to protect citizens from being charged with ilegally-obtained evidence.

The new precedent used the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection to all Americans regardless of state laws, to expand the right to counsel for all Americans. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at the federal level, but this new precedent applied to the state level. The Supreme Court decision was clearly uncontroversial because it was an unanimous decision: 9-0 majority (Oyez). All the Justices believed the Constitution placed a high importance on the right to a proper defense for the accused, as stated in the Sixth Amendment, and that it was unconstitutional for a court to deny proper defense for anyone charged. “The Constitution guarantees the right to counsel as a protection of due process” (Oyez), which does not limit due process just to those who can afford it, but rather all

Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 4 Ohio Misc. 197, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (U.S.Ill. 1964) , because this case set the precedent for future cases to guarantee any suspect their constitutional rights upon arrest.

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

During this case, there was dissent among the justices. This caused the results from the trial to be delayed, but would provide the best answer possible for law enforcement agencies around the United States. As Levenberg, T.O. (1995) states, “The court in Miranda created these procedural safeguards to adequately ensure that the accused know their rights and that the police honor them.” Out of the nine Supreme Court justices, five voted that the initial evidence could not be used because Ernesto Miranda was unaware of his rights to a legal counsel and his right to not give a statement until he had a legal counsel. These justices would go back and review three other cases as they made their decision; Westover vs. United States, Vignera vs. New York, and California vs. Stewart.

Question 6 The ruling rendered by the Supreme Court was in support of the accused party, Ernesto Miranda. The court ruled that the safeguard provided by the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination, necessitates informing individuals in custody about their rights before undergoing police interrogation (Nolan,2021, p.161). The court rendered a decision deeming Miranda’s confession as inadmissible as evidence due to its acquisition in the absence of being apprised of his entitlement to refrain from self-incrimination and to have legal counsel present.

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.