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.
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 was notified of the need for voluntary confession after making his oral confession. The written confession was then admitted into evidence at his trial before a jury despite objections from the defense counsel. The court then found him guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced him to 20 to 30 years in prison for each count, with these sentences running simultaneously. This ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of Arizona following Mirandas appeal on the basis that his constitutional rights were not violated since he did not specifically request counsel.
Issue: The issue was whether police officers should notify arrested defendants of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution before interrogation.
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties: The defense counsel representing Ernesto Miranda objected the admission of the...
This argument was based on the fact that police officers admitted that they did not advice Miranda of his right to an attorney and read out his right to voluntary confession prior to obtaining an oral confession from him. Therefore, the objective of the defense counsel was to stop the admissibility of the written confession into evidence. On the contrary, the State of Arizona contended that Mirandas Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. This argument was made to help ensure that the written confession was utilized as evidence to incriminate Miranda for his crime.
Holdings: In a split 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers need to advice arrested persons of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights before interrogation. Arrested individuals need to be notified of their right to remain silent, right to have an attorney or counsel appointed to represent them, and an explanation that any utterances could be used against them in a court of law. The absence…
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
Americans are aware that they are entitled to "their day in court" but may not fully understand the full range of due process protections that are contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the relevant literature to provide a discussion concerning the meaning, history and importance of the constitutional concept of "due process" as contained in the Fifth
ATT & Antitrust The history of antitrust law in the United States has been heavily affected by the AT&T Corporation. AT&T has been seemingly involved in one form of dispute or another with the U.S. Justice Department and other Government agencies regarding its business activities. Subsequent to the storied breakup of AT&T in the early 80's, there has been little discussion regarding antitrust activity involving AT&T but with their recent announcement
Rule: Any out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is generally inadmissible as hearsay. (801-802) However, hearsay may be admitted, in a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, if the declarant, while believing the declarant's death to be imminent, made the statement about its cause or circumstances. (804(b)(2). Application: Here, the defense attorney's objection is premised on the fact that the deceased Sam's statements are
Representative X: As healthcare legislation continues to be debated in the House and Senate, I would like to express my support for the continuation of one, significant policy that was instituted under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), namely the idea that young people under the age of 26 should be permitted to remain on their family's health insurance policies. The current generation of young people is graduating with more college debt