Suspects Need Their Miranda Rights

1747 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Research on miranda warning

In criminal trials, a defendant’s confession often delivers evidence that is influential when it is the primary source of the prosecutor’s evidence. When a suspect is brought into police custody to obtain a confession or a statement, police officers are required to read the Miranda warning if they believe the confession will be used to convict the suspect. The constitutional basis for the Miranda warning and the conditions for a voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights were announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona.

Miranda v. Arizona, announced June, 13 1966, resolved four separate criminal appeals concerning the role of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in police interrogations of criminal suspects. An Arizona jury convicted Ernesto Miranda of kidnapping and rape after he signed a confession to the Phoenix detectives. Without a lawyer present, he was questioned by the police for two hours. Three other cases were given the same kind of treatment; Vignera v. New York; California v. Stewart; and Westover v. U.S. The California case had been by the California Supreme Court because there was no evidence that Stewart was told of his rights to counsel and his rights to remain silent. After the California ruling, the U.S Supreme Court declared that the convictions of Ernesto Miranda and the other two convicts as were overturned.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the court ruled that any statements or confessions made from a police interrogation of a criminal suspect would be considered involuntary and inadmissible unless the police provided the suspect with four warnings: the right to remain silent; the intent to use the suspect’s statements against the suspect in court; the right to an attorney during questioning; and the...

... middle of paper ...

...anda as an active set of guidelines; which should be continually transformed by the courts to reflect our changing ideas of the privilege against self-incrimination (Rushin, S).

Works Cited

Oberlander, L. B., & Goldstein, N. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(4), 453-471. doi:10.1002/bsl.453

Rushin, S. (2011). Rethinking Miranda: The Post-Arrest Right to Silence. California Law Review, 99(1), 151-178. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Seaborn, B., Andrews, J. F., & Martin, G. (2010). Deaf Adults and the Comprehension of Miranda.Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(2), 107-132. doi:10.1080/15228930903446732

Vernon, M., Raifman, L. J., & Greenberg, S. F. (1996). The Miranda Warnings and the Deaf Suspect.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 14(1), 121-135. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Show More
Related

  • Ernesto Miranda's Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona

    813 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises

    Read More

  • False Confessions and the Norfolk Four Case

    2738 Words  | 6 Pages

    Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning, anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law. The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects.

    Read More

  • The Difference between the Miranda Rights and the Charter of Rights

    903 Words  | 2 Pages

    Friedman, S. (2014, March 10). You have the right to ... not much: Why are there no 'Miranda rights'

    Read More

  • The Injustice of the Deaf in the Criminal Justice System

    1943 Words  | 4 Pages

    Vernon, M, & Miller, K. R. (2005). Obstacles Faced by Deaf People in the Criminal Justice System. American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 150(3), 283-291.

    Read More

  • Anatomy of a False Confession

    1643 Words  | 4 Pages

    Mental retardation or suspects with low intelligence quotients (IQ) are easily manipulated by police comments and interrogation tactics. Those suspects usually do not understand the law or the consequences of a confession. They may want to please the police officer by being accommodating or agreeable. They may just wa...

    Read More

  • The Role Of Deprivation And False Confessions

    1923 Words  | 4 Pages

    According to “Sleep Deprivation and False Confessions” and “False Confessions to Police and their Relationship with Conduct Disorder, ADHD, and life adversity,” it tackles on the causes of false confessions and who is more prone to such factors. Based on “The Role of Deception” and “How the Police Generate False Confessions: An Inside Look at the Interrogation Room” by Trainum, James L, it focuses on the methods police interrogators use to coerce a false confession. Lastly, ways to prevent false confessions from recurring will be recommended through “Miranda Rights Comprehension in Young Adults with Specific Language Impairment,” “Miranda Rights and Wrongs: Matter of Justice,” and “Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations.” Due to these reasons, the modern justice system needs to be updated and enforced to avoid similar cases of coerced false

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights

    1348 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona

    543 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark case of Miranda v Arizona and declared that, whenever a person is arrested by the police should be informed prior to questioning the right under the Fifth Amendment (" the Fifth Amendment ") not to make statements that might incriminate himself.

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.

    Read More

  • Miranda v. Arizona

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda argued that his rights were violated because he admitted to the crime without knowing his rights, which should have been said to him when he was arrested. He claimed that the police had obtained his confession unconstitutionally. (Gitlin) He also mentioned that the police admitted to not telling him his rights. He reminded the Supreme Court that the...

    Read More

  • What Is The Exclusionary Rule

    839 Words  | 2 Pages

    Arizona, however the Supreme Court decided to focus on Miranda. Miranda signed a written confession, but there was no evidence that he was informed of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The other men also gave confessions after many interrogations, however, there is no evidence that they were informed of their rights either. However, the written confession was ultimately admitted into evidence at the trial despite the objection of the defense and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. They found Miranda guilty. At the appeal, the court held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. After Miranda’s decision was overturned by the court, the state of Arizona retried him, and Miranda’s confession was not included with the evidence. Nonetheless, Miranda was still ultimately convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years at this trial as well (Casebriefs,

    Read More

More about Suspects Need Their Miranda Rights

Open Document