The Miranda rights all started in 1963. Ernest Miranda was taken into custody by Phoenix police as a suspect for the kidnapping and rape of a girl. The Phoenix police department questioned Ernest for two vigorous hours. Miranda finally confessed orally to the crime, and then wrote out a statement admitting to the crime and describing what he had done. Miranda’s trial came to date; the crime was admitted despite his lawyer’s advice and he was convicted and sentenced.
Three years later Miranda’s appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The court had made its decision to make procedural requirements that the law enforcement must follow, which overturned Miranda’s conviction. Miranda v. Arizona caused a list, which the police must deliver to criminal suspects in the process of being questioned. Miranda has tried again and convicted.
The prosecution team could not use the confession, but a former girlfriend had testified that he had told her about the kidnapping and rape. Miranda was paroled and was an ongoing offender and was eventually killed in a bar attack. Miranda v. Arizona changed the rights of the accused dramatically. Anything that the offender is to say before the rights were read to him would not be allowed in court.
The offender must understand and waive his Miranda rights, which are: you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in the court of law, you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present while you are being questioned, if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before you answer any questions. The suspect must waive his right to be questioned. If the suspect does not waive his right the questioning must stop and a lawyer must be arranged.
If the police are to ask the suspect to reconsider, his Miranda rights are being violated. After Miranda was handed down, researchers immediately looked at the possible effect of the new rights. The negative results that the studies had shown had come true. Confession rates dropped from forty-nine percent to fourteen percent after Miranda.
With the lowered rate of confessions, the possibilities for clearance rates were estimated to drop dramatically. Surprisingly the clearance rate stayed somewhat stable. Researchers down the line have been studying possible changes to Miranda to make it more effective. Some possible examples of studies were: Videotaped interrogations as a substitute, bring an arrested subject before a magistrate for questioning, or possibly abolishing the Miranda rights and return to the “voluntaries” system.
Miranda has caused many court cases down the line to the present. A recent incident was on June 26, 2000, with a case called Dickerson v. the United States. On January 24, 1997, an individual robbed a bank using a handgun. An eyewitness got the license plate number with a description of the car. The FBI tracked the car down to the residence. Dickerson agreed to go with the agent to the field office. Dickerson said he knew nothing about the robbery, but admitted to being in the town where the robbery had taken place.
The agent got a search warrant through the magistrate for Dickerson’s house. The agent radioed an officer still at the house and told him about the warrant, then returned to Dickerson and the interview. He then told Dickerson about the search warrant and then read him his Miranda rights. There were discrepancies to when the right had been read, and Dickerson had given a confession. The house was searched. The officers had found a handgun, gloves, a mask, and ink died money.
Dickerson was indicted in the U.S District Court for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the commission of a crime. The U.S District Court found his statement in violation of the Miranda requirements. The court suppressed the statement and the items found by the search warrant. The District Court had found that his confession was voluntary and was allowed. Miranda once again is being looked at, to decide if a change is needed to make it constitutional and fair for both sides.
The constitution was designed to have basic laws to govern by and at the same time providing citizens with the basic rights of life, liberty, and happiness ( which later became property). These terms are pretty vague thus they often need to be given specific meaning or interpretation in a courtroom. The constitution also includes a set of amendments that are called the bill of rights, because they mainly deal with the rights of the people and citizens of the United States.
The fifth and sixth amendments protect the mentioned rights, especially of those being held in the custody of the authorities. Does the fifth amendment state that “No person shall be” compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.? The sixth states that.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining? (Bill of Rights, 1791)
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for armed robbery, and for kidnapping and raping a mentally challenged 18-year-old woman. He already had a record for armed robbery, and juvenile records including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While in police custody he signed a written confession to the crime. After the conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from self-incrimination. This was the beginning of the landmark case that lead to the”Miranda Ruling”.
The case, Miranda vs Arizona, made to the Supreme Court, where his conviction was overturned. In the 1966 ruling, the court established that the accused had the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights. The case was later re-tried. This time the confession wasn’t taken into consideration. Miranda was still convicted on the basis of other evidence and served 11 years.
Since this landmark case when suspects have arrested their “Miranda Rights” (as popularly known ) should be read. The statement is a standard list of rights that have been overused in police shows and movies. The ruling took a lot of consideration from the justice in charge of this case. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion is one of the best-known.
Warren’s handwritten notes contain his initial considerations about the decision that required police to warn an arrested suspect that the government could use any information provided as evidence and that the suspect had a right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. Warren sent his notes to Justice William E. Brennan, Jr., for comment.
Brennan’s reply suggested more flexibility and a larger role for Congress and the States. Warren incorporated some of Brennan’s suggestions before he circulated the opinion to the other justices. The following is an example of the Miranda Rule used by the Philadelphia police department. Every police department has it’s own variation of this rule but the rights are always the same ones.
We are questioning you concerning the crime (state-specific crime). We have a duty to explain to you and warn you that you have the following legal rights. One interesting aspect of this ruling is that although police have adapted their procedures to include these warnings, the frequency of confessions has not changed. However, the decision remains controversial because in some cases, if the police fail to recite the rights it will lead to the exclusion of confessions from evidence.
Nevertheless, the privilege of self-incrimination under Miranda only applies when the suspect is under police custodial interrogation. Custody means that the suspect has been deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way that creates an intimidating situation, even if the suspect has not been formally arrested?. Therefore, when IRS agents interrogate a suspect at his home or office, the suspect is not in custody, unless something about the situation is particularly intimidating; like being questioned by four police officers in one’s bedroom at 4:00 a.m. has elements of pressure.
This a very controversial ruling since some say that the methods in which police officers collect the evidence should not matter if the evidence proves culpability. However, the bill of rights protects all individuals even those that presumably have committed crimes. If the rights of an arrested suspect are violated in such a way and he/she is not even aware of it, then the laws are going against all the freedom this country stands for. It would also give the go-ahead to other violations such as torture. The Miranda Ruling did not send Ernesto Miranda free he was still re-tried and convicted of the crime he had indeed committed.
On February 28 and March 1, 1966, the case of Miranda v. Arizona was argued in the Supreme Court and was decided on June 13, 1966. The issue in question was “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” Early in 1963, an 18- year old woman was kidnapped and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigated the case, and soon found and arrested a poor and mentally disturbed man.
The name of this man was Ernesto Miranda, a name that would become well known in American constitutional studies. Miranda was 23 years old when he was arrested. He confessed that he had kidnapped and raped the young woman after only two hours of questioning. By confessing to the crime, Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. However, when Miranda was arrested he was not told his rights that are stated in amendment number five.
On appeal, Miranda’s lawyers pointed out that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, he was not told that everything that he said could be used against him. At the end of 1966, the United State’s Supreme Court gave support to the defendant side by only a 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court decision detailed the principles governing police interrogation.
In addition, they decided that the police have to make certain points clear for the accused before questioning and suspect. Ernesto Miranda, the defendant was a Mexican immigrant working as a truck driver. Miranda previously had already had a police record. Miranda’s attorneys in court argued that even though Miranda had admitted to the kidnapping and rape in the integration room that this information could not be used in court.
All the persons’ rights and freedoms are fixed in the Constitution, and they are regulated according to the definite laws. In the USA, the rights should be considered as a form of protection for each person. However, when the issue of Miranda Rights is discussed many people do not know the real meaning of the warning presented by policemen while taking any person into custody.
Those words which are often perceived by the public as the usual warning are important to protect the persons, and the Miranda Warning is used as the statement of the right against self-incrimination. Nevertheless, the Miranda Warning had not been used as the obligatory preventive procedure before 1966, when the case of Ernesto Miranda was discussed.
When people do not know their rights they can become the victims of their irresponsibility that is why the Miranda Warning can be considered as the necessary procedure to familiarize people with their rights and avoid the situation of self-incrimination.
The Miranda Warning is the statement of the rights provided for the person who is taken into custody. The procedure should be realized before the interrogation process is started. It is the obligation of policemen to inform the arrested person that he or she can remain silent before the attorney is present. There are several variants of the Miranda Warning, and they can be various in different states.
The most typical warning starts with “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you” (What are your Miranda Rights? 2007). It is also necessary to receive a positive answer to the question “Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?” (What are your Miranda Rights, 2007).
When this question is not answered because the person does not know the language or cannot provide the answer because of the definite disabilities, the necessary conditions should be created to inform the person about the rights and receive the answer on understanding the warning (Shipler, 2012, p. 43). The ignorance of this question and answer can result in misconceptions and further legal consequences.
The warning was formulated after ceasing the case of Ernesto Miranda who was accused of kidnapping and raping the young woman. The problem was in the fact Miranda was interrogated without having been informed about his rights to remain silent. Miranda confessed, however, this aspect could be discussed as a kind of self-incrimination. In spite of the fact Miranda was imprisoned, the case was heard again.
Miranda won the case because the interrogators did not state the person’s rights according to the Fifth Amendment. From this point, the Miranda Warning is an effective tool to realize the aspects of the Fifth Amendment on the problem of self-incrimination (Shipler, 2012, p. 140).
The person has the right to refuse to answer the questions of the interrogators without the attorney at any time in spite of the fact the interrogation process started. It should be ceased till the attorney is present. Moreover, if the person refuses to speak without the attorney, but then he changes his decision, the person can start answering the interrogators’ questions (What are your Miranda Rights? 2007).
However, there are many details associated with Miranda Rights. People should be informed about their rights to remain silent and speak in the presence of the attorney only when they are arrested officially. When the person is not arrested, but he should be asked about the definite crime, the Miranda Rights do not work. In this situation, the person should not be Mirandized because the Fifth Amendment is not correlated with such a case.
Those people, who are not in custody and not officially interrogated, are not protected with references to the Miranda Rights. In this case, the persons’ answers to the policemen’s questions can be used against them (Shipler, 2012, p. 92-93). And the opposite side of the process is presented in the fact that when the person is in custody he must be provided with the Miranda warning without references to the situation and place.
The importance of Miranda Rights is in their protective character. However, the persons should be responsible in relation to their rights and freedoms and understand the situations when the Miranda Warning is not provided. The situation of misunderstanding the Miranda Warning associated with the Fifth Amendment can result in the development of definite misconceptions about the persons’ rights and their protection in relation to the case of arrest and further interrogation.
The necessity to inform the persons in custody about their rights is a result of misconceptions and violating human rights with references to Ernesto Miranda’s case. It is important to protect the suspects from being accused because of their possible self-incrimination, and the developed Miranda Warning is the effective preventive procedure used by policemen in the process of arresting suspects.
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested on charges of rape and kidnapping of an 18-year-old girl. He was interrogated but was never aware that the details of his interrogation would later be used against him in his court trial. Miranda stated that he was never spoken to concerning his right to silence and council as well as the confession being used against him in his trial.
He would end up being sentenced to prison, however, in June 1965, his attorneys would send the case to the Supreme Court arguing that Miranda had been violated of his right as stated in the 5th and 6th amendments.
The case would lead to chief justice Earl Warren to write the first draft of the Miranda rights. The Miranda rights are not explicitly stated in the constitution, however, the constitution does guarantee against self-incrimination by the 5th amendment and the right to counsel by the 6th amendment. Law enforcement officials are run by the department of justice, they are responsible for reading these rights to all people they arrest, and in my opinion, I feel that the officials do a good job of ensuring that all people they detain are read their Miranda rights.
I feel the job of ensuring all people who are arrested are tried fairly in trial and by jury is done very well, and the Miranda rights adequately follow the constitutional amendments in what each amendment requires and also by what each amendment states are constitutional.
Everyone knows the iconic phrase “you have the right to remain silent” (Moya, 2017.) It is usually the first thing that police tell someone when taking them into custody, and it makes up one of the several rights – commonly known as Miranda Rights- that people have when in police custody (Moya, 2017.)
Police must notify a person of their Miranda rights before taking them into custody or interrogating them. If they do not, they risk having a judge throw out any statements or admissions that the person in custody might make (Moya, 2017.) Determining the exact point when police officers have taken someone into custody presents difficulties, however (Moya, 2017.)
Obviously, an arrest constitutes police custody, but other situations can amount to police custody even without a formal arrest (Moya, 2017.) To decide whether or not police have placed a person in custody, courts will examine the facts of a particular case in order to determine whether or not a reasonable person would have felt like they could leave the situation or interrogation (Moya, 2017.)
If a reasonable person would have felt free to leave in that situation, then the police have not taken the subject into custody (Moya, 2017.) If a reasonable person would not have felt at liberty to leave, then the police have placed the subject in custody and must notify them of their Miranda rights (Moya, 2017.) The same rules apply when the situation involves the questioning of minors (Moya, 2017.)
The Miranda rights are the rights a police offer is required to say to someone when the officer arrests that person. It is the warning that officers of the law give suspects so they know about their rights before they are interrogated. It was a law made after the conclusions of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. The case was very close as it was a 5-4 decision.
The court ruled that any type of evidence, whether it is incriminating or proof of innocence, can be used as evidence in a case; however, it can only be used if the police let the suspect know that they have the right to an attorney before and during questioning and also that the suspect can be silent to avoid self-incrimination before an interrogation. It is now a staple when police arrests are made.
In this paper, I will explain why I believe that Miranda Rights are not necessary anymore. Miranda Rights should no longer be required. One of the reasons for the establishment of the Miranda rights is because before Miranda vs. Arizona the police would constantly use violence to extract confessions and facts from potential criminals.
The Miranda Rights put a stop to the constant torture to achieve admissions of guilt. Today however modern technology serves the purpose of limiting torture or violence in investigations. These interrogations are recorded now, so there so is no need for Miranda Rights. Now instead of using something indirect such as Miranda Rights to prevent violence during questioning, the police now use something directly to prevent it. Saying a bunch of rights to someone will not guarantee that force will not be present in an interrogation.
A recording will not prevent excessive force, but it will certainly do a better job than reading someone’s rights. One other reason why I believe that Miranda Rights are not necessary is that the rights are already implied during the arrest because it is part of the culture. People today have watched so many episodes of Law & Order, Crime Scene Investigations, and many other similar shows regarding the law.
If you have ever been arrested or questioned for a crime, you are probably familiar with these famous words. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present before any questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning.
Do you understand these rights? “Those are one of the most common sets of words that are said throughout law enforcement agencies. These words are now mandatory to be said by an officer arresting a perpetrator because of one man, Ernesto Miranda. Ernest Miranda who the Miranda rights were named after was a convicted rapist who lived in Arizona. In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping, and rape of a young woman.
The victim identified Ernesto Miranda at a police headquarters. The police interrogated Mr. Miranda for about two hours until he signed a written confession. At trial, his conviction was based only on his confession he gave during the interrogation. So his attorney appealed the conviction arguing that “Miranda was not told he had the right not to answer the police officer’s questions.”
He was not informed of his right to his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and sixth amendment-right to counsel. Because of his rights not being read to him, the courts seized his conviction. These rights are now called Miranda rights because the requirement to read them to suspects is the result of the Supreme Court’s decision in “Miranda V. Arizona.”
He was later retried and convicted based on other evidence and served several years in prison. After the Supreme Court made it mandatory that an arresting officer read the arrestee his rights. The Supreme Court later made it mandatory that the Miranda rights be read to everybody been interrogated. The exact wording was not specified. However, a guideline was set that must be followed.
Example #9 – interesting ideas
These constitutional rights came from an arrest of Ernesto Miranda, made by the Phoenix Police Department in March of 1963, for misdemeanor theft. However, officers believed that Miranda was also responsible for the Kidnapping, Rape, and Robbery of an 18-year-old girl about two weeks prior to the theft.
During a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the theft as well as the felony crimes committed against the young girl. After years of legal battles over the voluntariness of Miranda’s confession, which went all the way to the US Supreme Court, in 1966 it became a constitutional requirement that a Miranda warning would apply in certain situations.
The Miranda warning is intended to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions. It is important to note that the requirement to read Miranda does not go into effect until after an arrest is made. The officer is free to ask questions before an arrest. The answers to these questions are admissible in court.
Two conditions must be met in order for the police to read a Miranda warning. First, there must be “custody.” The basic definition of custody is that the person is not, or does not feel, free to leave. The second condition is “interrogation,” meaning that the police are asking the person-specific questions about the crime they are investigating. Only when both conditions, custody, and interrogation, exist are the police required to read Miranda.
So, if you are interviewed by a police officer, but are not in police custody, they are not necessarily going to read you your rights. Similarly, if you get arrested, but the officer does not want to ask you specific questions about the crime, the officer has no obligation to advise you of your rights. Ironically, after being released from prison, in 1976 Ernesto Miranda was stabbed to death in a Phoenix bar fight. His killer exercised his right to remain silent under Miranda and was never convicted.
Miranda vs Arizona court case question PLEASE HELP? So, I know that Miranda’s argument was that he was not given his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney to defend his case. but what would Arizona’s case be that Miranda was willing to sign the confession? and that he did the crime and that’s all that matters?
The concept of “Miranda rights” was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for domestic violence. (Miranda was subsequently retried and convicted.) The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:
…The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning and that if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. Arizona’s case would have simply been how Miranda confessed to a crime he committed.
What are some constitutionally-based arguments for Arizona in the court case Miranda v Arizona?
In American History, I have to write an essay about at least 3 arguments for Arizona in the court case Miranda v. Arizona. I have these:
1) It wasn’t the state’s job to tell Miranda his rights.
2) He was arrested before, he should’ve known his rights during that case.
3) All Americans should know their rights.
Hello there, The Miranda case really focuses on the reach of the 5th Amendment. Just when under the 5th does a person have the right to consult with an attorney. What if that person cannot afford an attorney. When under the 5th does a person have the right to refuse to answer questions from investigators. Under what conditions can what a person says to be used against them.
Under the 5th Amendment does the government need to remind the person of those rights? If so, under what situations. All of those are aspects of the 5th Amendment’s right against self-incrimination that had to be more fully defined and were so under the Miranda decision. Hello again, I apologize. I misinterpreted your question. I gave you the issues facing the court. You wanted the issues that the State of Arizona would raise to support its case.
Arizona could argue that the defendant’s confession was voluntary. He was not tortured. He was not deprived. He was not subjected to repeated interrogations over an extended period of time. The legal standard at the time the defendant confessed to the crime is: was the confession voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. The defendant here wants a new standard created and applied to him retroactively.
He wants his confession thrown out even though the police obtained it in accordance with the requirements of the 5th and 14th Amendments as they existed at that time. He wants us to hold the police to a new standard and thus overturn his conviction, even though the police acted in accordance with the legal standards. There is no precedent for his position. The Constitutional standard for whether a confession is voluntary is the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
The confession that the defendant signed says at the beginning that he is aware of his right against self-incrimination and that he voluntarily waives that right. There is no evidence that any form of coercion was used to force the defendant to sign that confession which stated he was waiving his right against self-incrimination.
The State of Arizona could argue that the defendant was arrested in the morning hours and brought to the police station. There the victim of the rape identified him from a lineup. He was then taken by 2 police officers to a separate room to be questioned. At first, he denied his guilt. But shortly after, he orally confessed to the crime and explained it in detail.
He then wrote a handwritten confession and signed a brief statement. All of this was done in about 2 hours time without any threats, force, or promises. All of that occurred in a brief period of time during light hours. There is nothing in the facts or circumstances to indicate that his confession was anything but voluntary.
Arizona could argue that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a person has the right to an attorney during any part of the police investigation. The 6th Amendment provides for legal counsel at trial. The issue here is not an attorney present during the trial, but rather an attorney present in the police station. There is no legal precedent for requiring that an attorney be present during any part of a police investigation.
The argument that questioning is a critical aspect has no legal precedent. Is questioning by the police any less of a critical aspect than questioning during the grand jury investigation. There is no right to an attorney during the questioning before the grand jury. The established legal standard is that if a defendant cannot afford an attorney he will be provided one by the Court during his trial.