Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
This case was first brought in district court against Ernest Miranda after a rape investigation led authorities to question him. Under questioning, Miranda admitted to raping a young girl and signed a written confession. The case was heard in Phoenix district court and Miranda was adjudicated as guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Miranda's appeal, finding him guilty once again. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.
Ernesto Miranda was accused of raping a young woman. The woman described her assailant and his vehicle, and using this information, the police traced the vehicle description to Miranda. Miranda also fit the physical description of the attacker, and was arrested and questioned. Under questioning, Miranda signed a written confession. His district trial summarily convicted him and he was sentenced to thirty to forty years in prison.
Miranda's lawyer appealed to the state supreme court on the grounds that his client was not aware that he was entitled to an attorney when he made his confession; the investigating officer had, in fact, testified that it was not standard to inform individuals under arrest of their rights before they made a statement. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected this reasoning and upheld Miranda's conviction. Miranda then appealed on the same basis -- that he was unaware of his right to counsel or against self-incrimination -- to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case.
The Supreme Court had ruled in a prior case about the right of arrested persons to counsel in Gideon v. Wainwright. 372 U.S. 335, (1963) This case established that an accused individual had the right to an attorney being present at their trial, but did not establish a right to an attorney at any other point. Miranda's counsel argued in both the district court and state Supreme Court that this opinion should be interpreted...
The Court also stated that if an individual indicates at any time that he wants to remain silent, the interrogation must stop; any statement taken after this time is the product of compulsion. Silence can never constitute a valid waiver. Dissent: Justice Clark's dissented in three of the decisions, but concurred in one. He found that police coercion was not sufficiently established to justify the extent of the majority's decision.
Case Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and locked up in a Phoenix police station on March 13, 1963 where he was identified by a complaining witness (Samaha, 2012). �Law enforcement officers took him to an Investigation Room where he was questioned before the two officers came out with a written confession that he signed.� During the questioning, Miranda was not notified that he had a right to an attorney and
Is the EEOC's understanding of its rule entitled to respect under Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007) -- a case decided twelve days after the Eighth Circuit delivered its decision in this case? Martel v. Clair - Docket No., 10-1265 In this case after ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent abruptly complained about and sought substitution of his
Criminal Justice & Criminology Has the Miranda vs. Arizona ruling decreased the percentage of arresting official violations of defendant Fifth Amendment rights? (Rian) CJ327W Research Methods in Criminal Justice The Miranda vs. Arizona ruling has attracted notable attention to the treatment of the accused in the hands of the law. Specifically, the ruling affirmed the rights to the accused under the law and to the legal rights of the accused. The research was
Americans are aware that they are entitled to "their day in court" but may not fully understand the full range of due process protections that are contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the relevant literature to provide a discussion concerning the meaning, history and importance of the constitutional concept of "due process" as contained in the Fifth
Product Liability and Vaccines This study examines product liability as it relates to vaccine damages. This study investigates such cases and the decisions handed down by the judicial system on the liability of the drug manufacturers in cases where individuals have been harmed by the vaccinations. There are however, statutory protections afford to developers of vaccine immunizations which serve to protect the interest of these companies and as well as special
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now