Miranda V. Arizona's Case Analysis

Due process of law has been one of the major principles of the United States justice system. One part of due process is that police officers must follow regulations to ensure suspects are treated fair. Until the 1960’s there were no guidelines on the rights of a suspect during an interrogation. Miranda V. Arizona was a fundamental Supreme Court case that established a procedure police must follow while arresting a suspect, it also established the rights an individual has during the interrogation process. In this paper we will discuss the circumstances leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, the reasoning behind the court’s decision, the ways it has impacted the criminal justice system, and finally how the decision in Miranda’s case effected

He was arrested for kidnapping a woman, driving her out into the desert and then raping her. Miranda was brought in for questioning over a week later, and was then arrested after police said he was positively identified in a lineup. The officers then told Miranda that he could not leave until he gave them a full confession. The officers did not tell him about his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and his right to an attorney. Miranda wrote a full confession on a piece of paper that already had information saying he knew his Constitutional rights, also he was waiving his right to counsel, and finally that he was voluntarily confessing without coercion. Miranda was then charged with first degree rape and kidnapping. Since Miranda was poor, the court appointed Miranda a public defender. The prosecution prepared their case around Miranda’s confession. While Miranda’s lawyer defended that he had no knowledge that he had the right to counsel during questioning, and that his confession was actually involuntary. When the prosecution presented Miranda’s confession to the court his lawyer objected that the evidence was obtained illegally and should be thrown out. The judge denied the motion because the paper stated that Miranda knew his Constitutional rights, and it was then ruled the confession was voluntary. After a short trial Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to twenty to thirty years in

He stated that Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process was violated when his involuntary confession was submitted to the court, as well as his right to counsel. The prosecution failed a brief stating that Miranda had a fair trial because the constitution did not state that a defendant needs an attorney during questioning, and that Miranda never asked for counsel. The decision was upheld. The court decided that the police did everything appropriately, and Miranda’s rights were never violated when he was interrogated without an attorney present. After Miranda’s first appeal was upheld his attorney stopped representing him. Miranda then decided to write a writ of certiorari. While he was doing this the American Civil Liberties Union heard about his case, and support Miranda through this process. He was also able to get to gain two attorneys to help him, John P. Frank and John P. Flynn. On behalf of Miranda they filed the writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. At the time the Supreme Court was referred to as the Warren court, this was after the chief justice at the time Earl Warren. The Warren Court was known for taking controversial cases. The court accepted to hear Miranda’s case. Miranda’s defense counsel argued that since he was not physically told that he had the right to remain silent when he was arrested was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.