Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements without the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination (Summary pp). The decision reads, "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him" (Summary pp). If the individual indicates that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease, until an attorney is present, and if an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney, the burden rests on the Government to show that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel (Summary pp).
Since the 1966 decision, many exceptions to the Miranda exclusionary rule have been made, and a violation of the Miranda ruling does not necessarily render the resulting statement inadmissible (Hendrie pp). The Court has clarified that Miranda warnings are not mandated under the Constitution but are merely designed to protect a suspect's right against forced self-incrimination (Hendrie pp). Some have suggested that Miranda warnings...
Moreover, beyond the borders of the United States, the Miranda warnings may be more well-known than any other feature of the American criminal justice system (Leo pp). The impact of the Miranda decision on police, on criminal suspects, on confession and conviction rates, on the American public, continues to be enormous (Leo pp).
Works Cited
Hendrie, Edward M. "Beyond 'Miranda.'" The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. March 01, 1997.
Retrieved August 13, 2005 from HighBeam Research Library Web site.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Retrieved August 13, 2005 at http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/primer.html
http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/background3.html
Leo, Richard A. "Questioning the relevance of Miranda in the twenty-first century." Michigan
Law Review. March 01, 2001. Retrieved August 13, 2005 from HighBeam Research Library Web site.
Syllabus: Supreme Court of the United States: 384 U.S. 436 Miranda v. Arizona.
Retrieved August 13, 2005 at http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html
Works Cited
Hendrie, Edward M. "Beyond 'Miranda.'" The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. March 01, 1997.
Retrieved August 13, 2005 from HighBeam Research Library Web site.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Retrieved August 13, 2005 at http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/primer.html
http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/background3.html
Retrieved August 13, 2005 at http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 129 S. Ct. 2079, 173 L. Ed. 2D 955 Jesse Montejo and Jerry Moore were interrupted during a burglary by the owner of the residence, Lewis Ferrari (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009). Montejo was picked up for questioning the next day and after waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966), admitted to shooting and killing Lewis Ferrari during the burglary. When Montejo
Miranda Rights To most people, the case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is synonymous with the Miranda warnings given to accused criminals. People understand that Miranda means that a criminal defendant has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Although Miranda warnings do inform defendants of those rights, the Miranda decision is not what created those rights. In fact, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,
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.
Other examples in which the Court of the United States notes the Constitution had been violated because the defendant was not guaranteed aid of counsel or legal advisement include the case of Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 314, No. 326. This again is a case in which the Petitioner was accused and the interrogation was set up to make the Petitioner admit his criminal actions so that incriminating
Miranda Issues in Law Enforcement In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Ernesto Miranda, who had been arrested by Arizona police on suspicion of rape. The suspect confessed to the crime after two hours of questioning by police while in their custody, without ever having been advised of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination or his 6th Amendment right to legal representation before such questioning. Ever since the Miranda
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