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.
Right to Counsel
To whom it may concern,
This memo serves to inform and educate on what is commonly known as the "right to counsel". Even if criminals caught red-handed are not the Constitutional scholars that they think they are, anyone accused of and/or arrested for a crime does have a right to counsel. Before getting into when the rights to counsel become guaranteed and enforceable, the rights themselves should be discussed and the genesis of how they came to be should also be covered. The Miranda rights are as follows:
• You have the right to remain silent
• If you do say anything, it can be used against you in a court of law
• You have the right to have a lawyer present while you are being questioned
• If you cannot afford a lawyer, one can be appointed for you if you desire
The Miranda rights came to be due to a rape case involving Ernesto Miranda and that happened in 1963. Police arrested him for the rape of an intellectually disabled woman. They took him to be interrogated. After some discourse with the police, a written confession was produced that Miranda allegedly conceded...
It included a clause at the top that said that Miranda gave the confession willingly and with his rights fully known. Eventually, the conviction was thrown out because that was apparently not the case and thus the confession was not valid. He was later retried and convicted again, served five years in jail and was later killed in a bar fight in the 1970's. The basis for the Miranda decision was the Fifth Amendment, which speaks to the right of a person to not incriminate themselves upon questioning.
Anyhow, Miranda rights apply to one thing in particular and that is police questioning. However, they specifically apply to a person that is detained or arrested. They do NOT apply to people that is free to go. When a police officer is questioning someone and they are free to go, a Miranda warning need not be issued as it is not required. Police will often stress to someone they are talking to that they can leave at any time so that it is clear that they are not detained or under arrest. However, once an arrest or detention is in effect, the police must read the Miranda warning before going any further. If they do not, any confessions, answers or details they…
References
Dolan, M. (2013). Murder conviction voided over Miranda rights violation. latimes. Retrieved 14 May 2017, from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/29/local/la-me-miranda-murders-20131030
Doney. (2017). Ernesto Miranda. Doney.net. Retrieved 14 May 2017, from http://doney.net/aroundaz/celebrity/miranda_ernesto.htm
Miranda Rights Should Be Available to Individuals Detained by Private Security Most people are familiar with so-called "Miranda Rights" that are named after the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Fewer people actually understand what those rights actually are or why they are important. Specifically, Miranda does not actually require police to "read rights" to suspects or prohibit them from questioning suspects and arrested persons. Instead, Miranda imposes a
Miranda Rights Miranda THE PROS AND CONS OF THE MIRANDA RIGHTS Protection against self-incrimination is undoubtedly one of the most basic rights as described in the laws and codes of the American legal system. In the past, this right was often completely abridged, for those that were accused of a crime would be forced to confess their guilt through various forms of torture. But under American law, the protection against self-incrimination infers that
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
The idea of remaining silent when faced with accusation has historical religious and legal roots. Moses teachings', transformed to written form by the ancient Talmudic law had a complete ban on self-incrimination. The self-incrimination law could not be changed because it was viewed to contravene the natural instinct for survival. The ancient common law rule also had it that confusions must be voluntary. When the right to remain silent was
Miranda Rule's effectiveness in America today [...] why the Miranda is well tailored to guard against constitutional violations, and will present an argument for the Miranda rule. The Miranda Rule, first adopted in 1966, is still a contentious ruling in today's criminal justice system. While some critics of the rule feel it is not a deterrent to coercion of information from a suspect, most experts believe the Miranda Rule
Miranda Ruling: Its Past, Present and Future In almost all cases, the Miranda ruling of 1966 applies to police interviews with criminal suspects, although other Supreme Court decisions extend some of the rights to legal counsel and prevention of self-incrimination to public and private employers. According to the Supreme Court, the Miranda Warnings must be given prior to questioning to all persons who have been arrested and are in police