CJA201Case2

docx

School

Trident University International *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

201

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ElderParrotMaster912

1 Running Head: Miranda Law Miranda Law Gerardo Romero Maldonado Trident University International

2 Miranda Law Miranda Law “You have the right to remain silent” has been popularized with Hollywood police drama series, but a staple in the American justice system. In the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona made U.S. headlines news after Ernesto Miranda was arrested on charges of kidnap and rape. Mr. Miranda argued in court that he was never told of certain rights he was entitled to before a lengthy interrogation by police. The case sparked much debate and controversy, along with the creation of Miranda rights. But how effective is Miranda Law? For this assignment we will discuss important protections offered by Miranda rights, and if any recent cases have altered Miranda rights enforcement. In addition, we will also review the role of Miranda law in dealing with terrorism. Let's now delve into a deeper exploration of the effectiveness of Miranda Law, examining the vital protections it offers and any recent developments in its enforcement. Miranda Protections The case of Miranda v. Arizona closely examined rights individuals have, especially during interactions with law enforcement. The case alleged that Mr. Miranda had certain rights violated as he was not fully given the scope of said rights. The Supreme Court, also known as SCOTUS, scrutinized the 5 th and 6 th amendments, as those are the rights Mr. Miranda was not made aware of. For this case, the court argued of the following literature of the amendments: the right to remain silent from the 5 th amendment and the right to legal counsel of the 6 th amendment (Library of Congress, n.d.). The accused is protected from testifying against himself in any criminal case by the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. In other words, they may invoke this right in order to prevent any statements that may be damaging to his/herself during police interrogation (Maclin, 2016). Furthermore, a criminal defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment is crucial for ensuring that he/she is treated fairly throughout all the

3 Miranda Law criminal procedures brought against him/her. This gives the accused the right to seek counsel and if none can be afforded, then they may be provided one (Williams, 2004). These protections are vital to the American society as these protections collectively safeguard people’s 5 th Amendment rights against self-incrimination and their 6 th Amendment right to counsel to ensure fairness in the criminal justice process. Miranda law has played a major role in protecting accused' rights and ensuring due process in the US. It is important, however, that these constitutional rights can be subject to interpretation and legal challenges in specific cases and contexts. Newer cases can alter the effect of Miranda rights. Cases Altering “Miranda Law” The Supreme Court has examined more cases and have left an indelible mark on the enforcement and interpretation of Miranda rights, altering criminal procedures and the protections afforded to individuals while in police custody. The 1994 case of Davis v. United States provided new insight and interpretation on the right to legal counsel stemming from the 6 th Amendment. The outcome was a decision by SCOTUS that clarified the requirements for invoking the right to counsel during police interrogations. SCOTUS held that a suspect must unambiguously request an attorney in order to trigger their right to counsel under the 6 th Amendment. Vague or ambiguous request for an attorney is insufficient to invoke the suspects right (Davis v. United States, 1994). The defendant, Davis, made statements during interrogation and were admitted as evidence because his request for an attorney was not considered clear and unequivocal. His remarks of “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” were not enough. The ruling established a stricter standard for invoking the right to an attorney during police interrogations, emphasizing the importance of clarity in a suspect's request for legal counsel. The impact was on how law enforcement officers and the courts interpret and apply Miranda rights when it comes to

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

4 Miranda Law requesting legal representation of suspects during custodial interrogations. Miranda Law was closely examined and interpreted again more recently in the 2010 case of Berghuis v. Thompkins. Such as the ruling of Davis v. United States, suspects must, in order to invoke their 5 th amendment right, must do so unambiguously. To remain silent during an interrogation is not sufficient to trigger Miranda protections. Instead, the burden is on the suspect to clearly and unequivocally assert their right to remain silent (Rogers, 2011). Mr. Thompkins had remained silent during a police interrogation but eventually made an incriminating statement after almost three hours of silence. SCOTUS ruled that Thompkins had not adequately invoked his right to remain silent because he did not clearly express his desire to remain silent or not answer questions, Roger’s posits. Due to this ruling, law enforcement and judicial courts have created stricter standards to determine when a suspect has invoked their right to remain silent. The responsibility is placed on the suspect to make their intention to remain silent explicitly clear, as failure to do so may result in statements made during the interrogation being admissible in court. These cases have made a profound impact on how individuals interact with the law, but what of Miranda rights during threats of terrorism? The matter becomes rather difficult when involving such a terrifying and formidable subject. Miranda Law and Terrorism Cases involving national security threats or terrorist related issues become extremely complex in the American judicial system when the referring to the application of Miranda rights. Exceptions after the Miranda ruling have been made in order to balance the protection of individual rights and national security. The “Public Safety Exception” to Miranda rights was created after the 1984 case of Quarles v. New York. The court ruled that there was urgent need to protect public safety, as Benjamin Quarles was arrested and admitted to a potentially dangerous

5 Miranda Law firearm hidden in a public place. Therefore, the need to secure the gun for public safety outweighed the requirement to provide Miranda warnings (Keating, 1985). It is also important to note that the FBI in 2010 had issued out a memorandum about terrorist subjects and their Miranda rights. In a New York Times article, we are given the literature of said memo. The memo states if there is a reasonable concern for public safety, agents are allowed to question suspects without providing Miranda warnings. This allows for the collection of information related to immediate threats. Once the concerns about public safety have been addressed, agents will inform the suspect of their Miranda rights and obtain a waiver before further interrogation, though certain exceptional circumstances may apply. In exceptional cases where there is a need to gather intelligence unrelated to immediate threats, unwarned interrogation may continue after the initial public safety questions. However, this requires approval from supervisory personnel and legal consultation to ensure compliance with relevant legal standards (The New York Times, 2011). Cases involving national security and terrorism create complex challenges in the American justice system regarding the application of Miranda law, and it may be safe to say we may still find ourselves with new interpretations in the future. Conclusion The case of Miranda v. Arizona set important precedents for the protection of the 5 th and 6 th amendments, or the right to remain silent and the right to seek legal counsel with a pivotal role in safeguarding individual rights in the American justice system. The case of Miranda v. Arizona set important precedents for the protection of these rights, particularly in the context of police interrogations. Miranda Law has also been subject to varying interpretation, with notable Supreme Court cases like Davis v. United States and Berghuis v. Thompkins establishing stricter standards for invoking these rights. With the 2010 FBI memorandum, we see the way certain

6 Miranda Law Federal agencies circumvent their way around Mirandizing suspects of terrorist activities, using the “Public Safety Exception” from the 1984 case. While Miranda rights provide crucial protections in the American justice system, their application can be subject to exceptional circumstances, thus reflecting the complexity of balancing the protection of individual rights with the safeguarding public safety in the face of evolving threats.

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

7 Miranda Law References Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452. (1994). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/452/. Keating, M.M. (1985). New York v. Quarles: The Dissolution of Miranda . Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2496&context=vlr. Library of Congress. (n.d.). 1966: Miranda v. Arizona . Retrieved from https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/miranda-v-arizona. Maclin, T. (2016). The Right to Silence v. the Fifth Amendment . Retrieved from http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2016/iss1/7. New York Times. (2011). FBI Memorandum . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html. Rogers, J.M. (2011). You Have the Right to Remain Silent...Sort of: Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Social Costs of a Clear Statement Rule, and the Need for Amending the Miranda Warnings. Retrieved from https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1468&context=rwu_LR. Williams, J. (2005). Criminal Law—The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel—The Supreme Court Minimizes the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel by Maximizing the Deference Awarded to Barely Competent Defense Attorneys. Florida v. Nixon . Retrieved from https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1218&context=lawreview.

CJA201Case2

Related Documents