On June 13th, 1966, the Supreme Court announced its ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case. This ruling established “Miranda Rights,” a standard police procedure which revolves around the principle that an arresting officer must advise a criminal suspect of his or her rights before being taken into custody and interrogated. The Court’s ruling in this landmark case effectively reinforced the importance of ensuring that the accused are aware of their due process rights. In this essay, I will describe prior events leading up to the Court’s decision in the case, the case’s significance, and the reasoning behind its ongoing necessity. On March 2, 1963, a young woman was kidnapped, assaulted and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. After informing the police of the incident, the woman was questioned by detectives. …show more content…
During her interrogation, she was only able to provide a lackluster description of her attacker and the car he abducted her with. Fortunately, one of the witnesses of the attack was able to recall a partial license plate number from the assailant’s car. Using this newfound information, the police were able to track down the vehicle, and later the woman’s perpetrator. On March 13, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home, taken to the police station; although the woman did not identify Miranda in a line-up, he was taken into custody and later interrogated (History.com). The police did not inform Miranda of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. By the end of the interrogation, the investigators had obtained a written confession signed by Miranda. This confession included a typed disclaimer, also signed by Miranda, stating that he was fully cognizant of his fifth amendment rights and that he had knowingly waived those rights (Infoplease.com). During his trial, Miranda’s appointed attorney failed to make a compelling case against the prosecution.
Subsequently, Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape, and received a 20-year sentence. Not long after his initial conviction, the American Civil Liberties Union took up his appeal, adamant that the confession he gave was false and coerced (History.com). This assertion lead to the Supreme Court retry his case and later overturn his conviction. The rationale for the Court’s decision is based upon the shared philosophy that an individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself. Miranda v. Arizona is a case that enabled the Supreme Court to fully identify and reiterate the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the police. The “Miranda Rights,” or “Miranda Warnings” are based off of these legal obligations: “Police must warn a suspect “prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”
(Infoplease.com) I firmly believe that this landmark case set the bar high for police protocol worldwide. The Miranda Rights serve as a check-and-balance system for all authorized personnel involved in the case. If the police fail to warn the accused their rights, anything the suspect confesses to can legally be disregarded in court. The Miranda Rights play a fundamental role in the arrest and interrogation process all criminals must go through. Without Ernesto Miranda, these rights may have never been established.
After two hours of interrogation by the police, Miranda wrote a complete confession, admitting to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl ten days earlier. Alvin Moore was assigned to represent Miranda at his trial which began June 20th, in front of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. It was pointed out that Miranda had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Despite that he had not been informed of his rights, Miranda was convicted, forcing him to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The charges as well as the verdict remained the same. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 1965. Criminal Defense Attorney John Flynn agreed to represent Miranda in Alvin Moore’s stead. The Supreme Court agreed that the written confession was not acceptable evidence because of Ernesto’s ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the police’s failure to inform him of them. Then state of Arizona re-tried him without the confession but with Twila Hoffman’s testimony. He was still found guilty and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, but this case set precedence for all other cases of this
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).
Ernesto Miranda grew up not finishing high school. He didn’t finish the 9th grade, and he decided to drop out of school during that year. He also had a criminal record and had pronounced sexual fantasies after dropping out of high school. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963. He had raped an 18 yr. girl who was mildly mentally handicapped in March of 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. When he was found and arrested, and he was not told of his rights before interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, the cops and detectives had a written confession from Miranda that he did do the crimes that he was acquitted for. Miranda also had a history mental instability, and had no counsel at the time of the trial. The prosecution at the trial mainly used his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of both counts of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court in
Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest and subsequent questioning and investigation may continue. These are the liberties that were afforded to suspected criminals in the Miranda Vs Arizona.
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.
...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.
...hrough or not, they were dealing with a similar case in which the suspect won with 5 of 9 justices agreeing. The Arizona courts denied Miranda’s appeal so he remained in jail. His last chance appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he could not afford the $100 fee needed to do so. He sent in the papers only to have them returned because of improper papers. He resent it without the money to see if the supreme court would listen to his petition. While waiting for a response from the Supreme Court, Miranda was joined by JJ FF and FF NN. Frank’s strong point was the U.S. Constitution and NN’s was criminal law. Many Months had passed until the Supreme Court responded and the lawyers worked on the brief during this time. Towards the end of February of 1966, the legal group in which represented Miranda appeared before the supreme court to make their spoken arguments.
L.E. Orr “Fitting Justice for Susan Smith?” http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1995-08-02/news/9508020382_1_susan-smith-rough-life-carjacking Orlando Sentinel , August 2, 1995. Web. February 9,2012
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.
Miranda rights, also known as the Miranda warning, is a warning given by police in the United States to suspects in custody before they are interrogated. The name Miranda rights comes from the case Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court held that the admission of incriminating statements by a suspect who has not been read their rights, violates one's right to counsel. Therefore, if a police officer does not inform a suspect of their Miranda rights, they may not interrogate that person and cannot use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a court of law (Miranda Warning, 2014).... ... middle of paper ... ...
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.
Miranda v Arizona went all the way to the Supreme Court. There the Supreme Court ruled that the police do have a responsibility to inform a subject of an interrogation of their constitutional rights. The constitutional rights have to do with self-incrimination, and the right to counsel before, during and after questioning.
From the moment an innocent individual enters the criminal justice system they are pressured by law enforcement whose main objective is to obtain a conviction. Some police interrogation tactics have been characterized as explicit violations of the suspect’s right to due process (Campbell and Denov 2004). However, this is just the beginning. Additional forms of suffering under police custody include assaults,
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.