Miranda v. Arizona
The landmark Miranda v Arizona decision was rooted in the case ofErnesto Miranda. On March 13, 1963, a bank worker in Phoenix, Arizona wasrobbed of $8.00. Police suspected and arrested Ernesto Miranda for thetheft. By this arrest, Miranda already had an extensive arrest record,including robbery, burglary, assault and attempted rape and a separate During the two hour questioning, Miranda was not offered a lawyer.During the interrogation, Miranda confessed to the theft of the $8.00. Inaddition, he also confessed to the kidnapping and the rape of an 18-year-old woman 11 days earlier. This confession was the most important piece ofevidence that eventually led to Miranda's conviction for rape. He was Miranda's lawyers appealed the conviction for rape, arguing thatMiranda did not understand how the Constitution's Fifth Amendment protectedhim from self-incrimination. The appeal was unsuccessful at the ArizonaSupreme Court and was then heard at the United States Supreme Court. Afterhearing the arguments, the high court reversed the Arizona court'sdecision. Ernesto Miranda was granted a new trial, where his confession
In an ironic twist, the suspect inMiranda's murder was read his "Miranda" rights and chose to exercise hisright to remain silent. Justice Harlan, for example, pointed out that the new rules set out byChief Justice Warren would do little to guard against police brutality andother forms of coercion. " Based on thisexcerpt from the decision, police officers often tell suspects thestatement that, "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed toyou free of charge if you wish. In his decision, Warren wrote that when a person is taken into custodyor deprived of freedoms, the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is automatically jeopardized. Supporters of the Miranda rights argue, however, that such rights remainnecessary, especially because of the reality that not all suspects aretruly guilty. After serving 11years in jail, Miranda was released on parole in 1972. In 1976, Mirandawas fatally stabbed during a fight. The experience of custodialinterrogation inside a police station can be oppressive in of itself. Inthis case, the high court decided to uphold the Miranda v. Attorney Bill Otisargued that the Miranda decision served to exclude all unwarnedconfessions, even despite the presence of clear evidence. A casebased on this reasoning was heard before the Supreme Court in 2000.
Common topics in this essay:
Ernesto Miranda,
Miranda Arizona,
Supreme Court,
Fifth Amendment,
Justice White,
Furthermore Warren,
Justice Warren,
University Utah,
Earl Warren's,
Bill Otis,
miranda arizona,
supreme court,
fifth amendment,
ernesto miranda,
decision miranda,
miranda rights,
custodial interrogation,
miranda decision,
decision miranda arizona,
miranda arizona decision,
person custody,
conviction rape,
|
Acceptance Essays
