This website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Learn more

Miranda V. Arizona Essay

943 words - 4 pages

James wells Wells 1History 1302Irigoyen26 March 2014Miranda v. ArizonaIn March 1963, a man names Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix Arizona, with the belief that he raped an 18 year old female. He was heavily questioned and interrogated, during this time he had admitted to committing the crime and gave a written statement which he signed; he went as far as to identify the girl that he had raped. He wrote in his statement that he was not threatened to say anything he did not do and he had full knowledge of his legal rights. Although in court, he said to the judge he did not know his rights as they were not stated to him at the time of the arrest; furthermore he did not know he had the right to remain silent and he had no knowledge that he had the right to an attorney. Also stating that if he knew his rights he would not have answered any questions and would not have done so until he had an attorney.The plaintiff was denied his rights to remain silent until proven guilty and he had no knowledge of the right to an attorney. While, the defendant states that he had enough legal evidence to lead to conviction or Mr. Miranda. The court is concerned with the fact that the plaintiff did not have his legal rights stated to him which violates his right to the fifth and the fourteenth amendment. This case of Miranda V. Arizona brings about the issue of a criminal or even non criminals rights. A peace officer must in all situations present a detainee with their rights given to them by the government. If not stated the detainee has a chance at pardon from the crime that they have committed due to the fact that they may not know their rights. This brings about the concern of the legal rights of Mr. Miranda and the state of Arizona.As the defendant I state that if an officer of the law has all the evidence needed for a conviction of a crime then why should Mr. Miranda have the right to remain silent and state to them their rights? Also, why should a criminal have the right to remain silent if they are under a investigation of a crime? I feel that if a man, women, or child is being apprehended by the police or a law office they should have to answer the questions that they are asked without the option of having an attorney. By giving a criminal the right to remain silent all that is being accomplished is allowing the criminal to have more time to make himself sound innocent before the judge and the jury. Another concern that I have is in a dangerous life threatening situation if a person has the right to remain silent; it could put the lives of innocent citizens in danger. You cannot present any type of excuse to anyone to make them believe that Ernesto Miranda did not know that he was...

Find Another Essay On Miranda V. Arizona

The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona

1918 words - 8 pages all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were

Miranda v. Arizona case: How it changed law enforcement

1577 words - 6 pages The "Miranda rule," which makes a confession inadmissible in a criminal trial if the accused was not properly advised of his rights, has been so thoroughly integrated into the justice system that any child who watches television can recite the 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 an attorney" Yet the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona

The Right to Appointed Counsel in Decisions of the United States Supreme Court prior to Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

1804 words - 7 pages The right to appointed counsel in decisions of the United States Supreme Court prior to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) From the Judiciary Act to incorporation doctrine In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the US Supreme Court stated in the name of Chief Justice Earl Warren that “…He [accused] 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

Protecting the Defendant with Miranda Rights

1168 words - 5 pages Rights." MirandaWarning.org. MirandaWarning.org. Web. 13 Nov 2013. "Landmark: Brown v. Board of Education." LDF: Defend, Educate, Empower. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Web. 27 Feb 2014. McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." The Supreme Court. Thirteen/WNET New York, n.d. Web. 14 Nov 2013. "Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Web. 17 Mar 2014. Negro Paper Honors Nine For Civil Rights

Earl Warren: Chief Justice for the United States

847 words - 4 pages self-incrimination and gave him the right to an attorney respectfully. When the case was brought the court, Ernesto Miranda’s confession was used against him. ("Background Summary & Questions (•••)"). He was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison ("Miranda v. Arizona (1966)"). Meanwhile, Miranda’s attorney petitioned that the confession was coerced out him ("History of Miranda Right."). The case concerning Miranda’s revelation was

Miranda Rights

1521 words - 6 pages , the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman. The victim picked Miranda out of a lineup and he was subsequently interrogated for two hours during which the police investigators

The Miranda Decision

1769 words - 7 pages The Miranda Decision In 1966, the U. S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda decision was a departure from the established law in the area of police interrogation. Prior to Miranda, a confession would be suppressed only if a court determined it resulted from some actual coercion, threat, or promise. The Miranda decision was intended to protect suspects of their 5th Amendment right of no

Miranda Rights

746 words - 3 pages 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 was tried again and convicted. The prosecution team

Miranda Vs. Arizona. The Supreme Court decision detailed the principles governing police interrogation: The Miranda Rights

1505 words - 6 pages principles governing police interrogation specifying that police officers have to make certain points clear for the accused before the accused is interrogated. Specifically, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, police are required to recite the Miranda Rights. "Beginning with the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, law enforcement has endured three decades of court-imposed restraints on its ability to engage in

Suspects Need Their Miranda Rights

1744 words - 7 pages 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

How the Miranda vs. Arizona case spurred the Supreme Court to specifically outline the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects

1215 words - 5 pages In 1963, an 18-year-old woman was kidnapped and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigated the case, (Miranda vs. the State of Arizona), and arrested Ernesto Miranda, a mentally unstable man. Miranda, who was 23-years-old at the time of his arrest, confessed that he had kidnapped and raped the woman. By confessing to the crime, Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. However, when Miranda was arrested he was not advised of his

Similar Essays

Miranda V. Arizona Essay

1206 words - 5 pages Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark case because now almost everybody knows about this case because of the Miranda Rights that were a direct result of this case, and the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Supreme Courts ruling that it was against Miranda’s rights, then because of this decision they made the Miranda Rights. The Supreme Court was correct in the ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, which they ruled in favor of Ernesto Miranda because his fifth

Miranda V. Arizona Essay

1293 words - 6 pages other cases that were similar to his case. The court decided to see all of the cases as one. The court decided to call them Miranda Rights rather than the names of the other cases because it was the first case listed for the court to see on these similar issues. Miranda v. Arizona created a difference for all the following cases that were similar to this one. This case ensured that all people who were arrested after Miranda Rights were created

Miranda V Arizona Essay

1002 words - 5 pages that he “willingly” confessed to his crimes. In addition, the court did not want the court to “cripple” the police force on with the trial and that it was “just” that Miranda had been convicted for what he had done along with his sentencing for twenty-thirty years. The majority rule for the Miranda V. Arizona case had saw that the system of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were broken and that there was no clear direction to the rights of

The Fifth Amendment And Miranda V. Arizona

1781 words - 8 pages all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were