Week 4 - Miranda V Arizona
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Phoenix *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
/315
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by PrivateWhaleMaster667
Running head: MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 1
Miranda V. Arizona
Zaida Rivera
University of Phoenix
CJA:315/Criminal Procedure
Gary Weil
31 January 2024
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 2
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to the police station for questioning regarding the kidnapping and rape of a woman. He was questioned for two hours in which police officials used different tactics to get him to confess. This resulted in a written confession of committing the crimes he was being accused of. While at the time this may have been considered a “win” for law enforcement, the officers failed to advise him of his right to have legal counsel present during the interrogation process. Once on trial, a jury found Ernesto
Miranda guilty of the kidnapping and rape he admitted to during his interrogation. He then appealed the conviction to the state of Arizona, with the argument that he was not informed of his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, or his right to have an attorney present. In the end, the Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the conviction.
Following the verdict of his appeal in Arizona, Ernesto Miranda then appealed to The Supreme Court of the United States with the same argument. In 1996, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren that the prosecution cannot introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence because the police had failed inform him of his rights to an attorney, and against self-incrimination. Moreover, the court reversed Mr. Miranda’s conviction and ordered that the state of Arizona give
him a new fair trial. This case became a landmark that affected the rights of the accused as well as the responsibilities of law enforcement. As a result of this case, people who are detained by the police are read their Miranda rights which is intended to protect that suspects fifth amendment, and it goes as follows: “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. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you,” (Miranda Rights, Revise).
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 3
The lawyers on the United States Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona were John J. Flynn, ESQ, for Petitioner, and Gary K. Nelson, ESQ, for respondent. While Miranda’s name was used on this landmark case, there were three other cases with similar charges that also appeared on this suit. The reason for that was because they were seeking the same outcome, for their cases to be overturned in their favor. In the oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, Flynn argued that Miranda was not informed of his constitutional right to an attorney as well as his right against self-incrimination. He was not informed that anything he said
can and will be used against him before confessing to the crimes he was accused of (United States Supreme Court, 1966). It can be inferred that if Miranda had been informed of his right of not incriminating himself, the arresting officers would not have been able to get a confession out of him, thus, Miranda would not have been sentenced. Gary Nelson argued that while it is a fact that Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his right to council, Miranda did not request council, therefore he was not necessarily denied it (United States Supreme Court, 1966). Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark case that was decided by the nation’s highest court which altered the interaction between law enforcement and those taken into custody for years to come. This case is significant in respect to the right to council and self-incrimination because police officials are now required to tell those detained their rights. This case has shaped the interaction between police officers and those arrested. Contrary to popular belief, police officers are not required to read a person their Miranda rights at the time of an arrest. They are only required to read a person their rights once they are in official custody and ready to be questioned.
Prior to Miranda v. Arizona, this was not a requirement, therefore this case established uniform across all law enforcement departments and their interactions with people they are detaining.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 4
References
Miranda rights. (n.d.). https://cms5.revize.com/revize/graysharborcounty/Public%20Defense/
Docs/Miranda%20Rights.pdf Miranda Rights
. (2022, June 23). History.com. https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-
constitution/miranda-rights
United States Supreme Court. (1966, February 28). Ernest A Miranda, Petitioner, vs The State of
Arizona, Respondent
. http://users.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/miranda_v_arizona_oral_arguments.htm