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. Clark would continue to evaluate Fifth Amendment waivers under a totality of the circumstances approach.
Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White dissented. They found that the majority's required warnings would not prevent coercion, because officers could still lie about waivers, but to seek a Utopian "voluntariness" for confessions, which is impractical in the real world. They believed that the Court had already established an "elaborate, sophisticated, and sensitive approach to admissibility of confessions." (384 U.S. 436, 509). They believed that the Fifth Amendment was not a guarantee against pressure during interrogation.
Comment: At this time, the Miranda warnings are so widely known, that the reasons that the Court used to justify its decision may no longer be valid. Anyone who watches television or movies, has been exposed to the Miranda...
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
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
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
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
Finally, a lot of defense lawyers assist in helping men and women go free because of a technicality. On the whole however, it is a better system after the Gideon case because less innocent people are being convicted of crimes they did not commit. In the Case of Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court ruled that a defendant's admission was only admissible provided he had been properly
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