Miranda Vs Arizona Essays (Examples)

S. Supreme ourt).
Following this case, police departments were now required to inform every arrested person of their rights under the law, now called a "Miranda Warning." Many conservatives believed that it was unfair and unnecessary to inform suspects of their rights, rights they should know if an American itizen. Even President Richard Nixon believed that Miranda made it easier on criminals and harder on police. This view held that the rule would increase crime, and caused Nixon to state that he would appoint Judges who were "strict constructionists," and who would exercise judicial restraint (Burgen, 2006). There are three exceptions to the Miranda rule, though:

The routine booking question -- police may ask standard booking questions without needing Miranda.

Police hostage negotiations are not interrogations and therefore exempt.

The jailhouse informant exception or a secretly taped meeting between a suspect and police office in which the suspect attended voluntarily…

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 ruling, police have been required to advise suspects in their custody that they have four specific rights before interrogating them. Failure to comply with the Miranda requirements constitutes grounds for excluding any confessions in response to police interrogation. According to Miranda, custodial suspects must be advised that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to legal representation prior to questioning,…

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…

Miranda ule'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 ule, 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 ule was created with a solid foundation to help ensure a suspect's rights are not violated and the information from any suspect is admissible in court. The Miranda ule guards the criminal justice system just as well as it guards against rights violations and because of this, it is vital to the quick and efficient trying of cases. The Miranda ule is controversial, but it is a necessity in modern policing, and it helps both the suspect and the police.
The Miranda…

Criminal Justice & Criminology
Has the Miranda vs. Arizona ruling decreased the percentage of arresting official violations of defendant Fifth Amendment rights?

(ian)

CJ327W esearch 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 to reveal the degree of law enforcement lack of enforcing the Miranda rights to the accused. A questionnaire presented to four group types that have a stakeholder interest in the law enforcement and legal rights aspect of the case was distributed to determine the activity relevant to Miranda enforcement process. The findings are expected to reveal abuse within the system and a notable increase in the Miranda violations for the accused.

Purpose & Audience

The Miranda vs.…

The fact that Fred was eventually allowed to leave is less important in that determination than Fred's state of mind and reasonable belief about whether or not he was still free to leave once the police informed him that he was actually a suspect in Wilma's murder (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008).
Search and Seizure and Unlawful Arrest Issues:

The fact pattern does not make clear whether or not the police actually conducted a search of Fred's home or were merely "bluffing" to induce cooperation from Fred. Assuming that no such unwarranted search was actually being conducted, there was no impermissible search and seizure of Fred's home. Provided Fred still (reasonably) believed that he was free to terminate the interview and leave when he volunteered the confession, that evidence should not be excluded under Miranda (and related) doctrine and principles.

However, the police did seize Fred's vehicle, which was an impermissible…

Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040 (1983)) since the independence of a state court's state-law judgment is not clear.
Furthermore the Court stated that the Florida Supreme Court treated state and federal law as interchangeable and interwoven and therefore would give jurisdiction to the U.S. Supreme Court based on a ruling made in the Michigan v. Long case.

he most weight was obviously put on the wording used and how it can be interpreted and how it was interpreted. Since there are grammatical differences between "before" and "during," the decision cannot be upheld. It is clear that if the interrogator used the phrase: ".. An attorney will be presented to you before questioning" it is not the same as if it would read: ".. And attorney will be presented to you before and during questioning." his is misleading and can be interpreted as if the defendant would have the right to…

Moose Horn Police officers admissible at trial, since no Miranda warnings were given to the defendant at any time?
In the case of Sleazy vs. The state of decency the statements made by the defendant were not admissible in court because the officers did not inform Sleazy of his Miranda rights. These rights should have been stated to the defendant when it was obvious to the police officers that section 54321 of the law had been violated.

Instead the officers continued to ask Sleazy questions that they knew would incriminate him. This violated his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself; the amendment is a fundamental part of the American justice system and was not adhered to in this case. Therefore the statements made by Sleazy were not admissible in court.

In neglecting to read Sleazy his rights the officers were forfeiting all of the information that Sleazy was providing…

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 included in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. constitution, it was tied to a complicated and controversial history. The Supreme Court has applied three tenets in the constitution to evolve rules that govern police interrogation and the confession process. These three include the Sixth Amendment on the Right to Counsel, the Fourteenth Amendment clause on due process and the Fifth Amendment on Self-incrimination clauses. Each of these provisions has led the police to handle interrogation and confessions in varying ways…

They also had the power to decide the merits of evidence and arguments. In the 19th century, judges gained greater control over juries and the role of juries became what it is currently; hearing evidence presented on both sides and determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The advantages of the jury system lie in the foundational elements articulated and supported by amendments and the Supreme Court. The Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" (Landsman & Hastings 1992). A speedy trial was emphasized to avoid the accused languishing in prison for extended periods of time prior to a trial, or have the accused fate put off for an indeterminate amount of time. Further, the Sixth Amendment guarantees every citizens right to an impartial jury. The intent is that the prospective juries not enter into the…

Some of these methods include plea agreements and the disclosure of incriminating evidence, along with witness testimony. Thus, defendants' rights do not tie the hands of officers and the courts because officers and the courts have an arsenal of ways to manage these rights and still perform their jobs.
While the myriad of rights offered to defendants in the United States may sometimes seem like ways to protect the guilty and harm the innocent, this is far from the case. Not only are these rights necessary for protecting the defendant, along with the rest of the democratic society of the United States, but the rights can also be managed through a plethora of legal tactics on the part of the courts and police officers. Established through the Constitution and landmark court cases, primarily, defendants' rights honor the intent of the constitution. Though it is true that some guilty defendants may…

They are occasionally informed too poorly to make an opinion, or are simply uninterested in some aspects of politics. Public opinion used to be measured through voting, letter writing, and demonstrating. However, those who write letter and demonstrate generally have views that are more extreme than those of the public (166-168). Thus, the public opinion poll was introduced. Examples of public opinion polling include President Barack Obama's approval rating, which is currently 68%, and the 72% that believe the U.S. will be "better off in four years" (Gallup). Public opinion polls are important because they "keep the public well informed," as well as keeping the public in touch with important shifts in public opinion" ("Are opinion polls useful?").
Using a random sampling method, the public opinion poll uses probability to reflect the views of the public. That is, by using a random selection of the population, the opinions of the…

Policing History
1823- Stephen F. Austin known as the "Father of Texas" receives permission from the Mexican Government to employ ten men to protect the new Texas frontier. This marks the beginning of the long storied and infamous Texas angers. This is significant because it the initiation of one of the first law, and order enforcement agencies in the history of America.

1845- New York, this date and location is widely accepted as the beginning of paid, professional policing in America. William Frederick Havemeyer was the appointed mayor of the city during this time period. At his proposal, The New York State Legislature approved a proposal to organize and created the NYPD. This is significant because it marked the beginning of an institution that has been emulated and followed by other major cities across America. These cities followed and expanded New York's model of policing.

1902- Fingerprinting is first used…

Terry vs. Ohio
Terry Vs Ohio

The issue of what constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment forms the basis of the argument in the case of Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the petitioner Terry was stopped and frisked by the officer on the streets. A brief description of the situation is as follows. Detective McFadden was walking his beat when he observed two individuals who in his opinion were "casing" the joint with the intention of robbing the place in the daylight hours. This opinion was based on his observation and years of experience (Terry v. Ohio 2012). The suspects moved away from the initial area and were kept under surveillance by the detective. When the men joined a third person a few blocks away the officer identified himself as a police officer, requested the men's names and proceeded to pat down the outside of the men's clothing.…

Supreme Court Chief Justices Warren and ehnquist
Compare and contrast approaches to criminal procedures by U.S. Supreme Courts:

The Warren vs. The ehnquist Court

A common philosophical debate within the legal community is when the approach advocated by so-called 'conservative' justices (often called strict constructionism) is pitted against more 'liberal' and freer interpretations of constitutional words and history. Throughout much of the 20th century, it was often said that the more liberal interpreters of the Constitution were 'winning the war' in regards to this issue, thanks to the presiding intelligence of Chief Justice Earl Warren. "Following his appointment in 1953 Chief Justice Earl Warren led the Court into a series of decisions that drastically affected sexual freedom, the rights of criminals, the practice of religion, civil rights, and the structure of political representation. The decisions of the Warren Court reflected its deep concern for the individual, no matter how lowly"…

Custodial Interrogation vs. Voluntary Statements
In legal and criminal justice terms, as well as in their application in everyday life, there is a considerable degree of distinction between a voluntary statement and custodial interrogation. Nonetheless, there are a number of key similarities between these terms. Both of these proceedings (the issuing of a statement and an interrogation while in custody) can incriminate. Moreover, it is also possible for what begins as an opportunity to issue a voluntary statement to end as an instance of custodial interrogation. One of the key differences between these proceedings is the liberty of the person issuing administration to either federal, state or local authorities.

A voluntary statement is made to the aforementioned authorities without an individual being compelled to make a statement. Frequently, voluntary statements are made at will on the part of the person making them. Individuals may choose to go to a police…

Organizational Issues and Criminology
Introduction- When we think of the criminal justice system in the United States, we are referring to a broad collection of federal, state, and local agencies that are focused on crime prevention and upholding the law. In general, these agencies uphold the law at various levels, investigate crime, process the accused, compile evidence, work with the district attorney, and develop profiles and crime prevention techniques. The process of the criminal justice organization is designed to work in conjunction with the three branches of the U.S. government, and to uphold the Constitution. Organizationally, because there are so many agencies, personalities, interpretations and goals, there tends to be either a crime control model or a due process model. Many scholars see that this is one of the downfalls of the organization, because the tension and competition between the two viewpoints tends to cause negative issues within the system…

Troy Stone is showing how the police engaged in questionable tactics. This is based upon the fact that they have a witness who identified him. Yet, they were not able to come up with any corroborating evidence to directly link him to the murder. To make matters worse, they violated his constitutional rights in the process. These issues are highlighting how there were questionable tactics used to obtain the confession. To fully understand what is occurring requires focusing on: possible arguments which can be raised on Stone's behalf, if there was a violation of his constitutional rights and case law that supports these claims. Together, these elements will illustrate how Stone's civil rights were violated during the course of the investigation.
Discuss the arguments you think Taylor will raise on Stone's behalf regarding the lineup, interrogation, and confession.

There are a number of arguments which can be raised that will…

Right to Counsel
In the United States, the right to counsel is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Right to counsel is the civil right of an accused person to seek the aid of an individual who is an expert in the law of the land. Often when a person finds him or herself in a position where they are a defendant in either a civil or criminal court, they need to utilize the skills of someone who understands the law. ithout this right, the accused would be at a decided disadvantage against prosecution who are trained and employed in the field of the law. The present law of the United States is that a person may employ an attorney to represent him or her in a court. If a person is unable to afford an attorney, then counsel will be appointed to that person and paid for…

The Burger Court held that the prosecution simply needed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence illegally obtained would have been lawfully and inevitably discovered. The Burger Court did not think that a police officer would act illegally on the 'off' chance that the evidence might be admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, and could not reasonably calculate if the evidence would inevitably be discovered (Hendrie 1997:2).
The Nix v. illiams finding is an important counterweight to the restrictions the exclusionary rule imposes upon law enforcement officials. In contrast to the arren Court, the Burger Court accepted that, although protecting constitutional rights is important, the exclusionary rule is often a "drastic and socially costly remedy" because it often results in obviously guilty people going free, meaning that the cost of releasing illiams back into the world would have been high, while the gain to society of…

Supreme Court Bill of Rights Case
Terry v. Ohio introduce the Terry frisk into police procedure, allowing officers to have the right to stop and frisk or do a surface search of individuals on the street even without probable cause. All the officer would need would be to have a reasonable suspicion that the person being searched had committed, was about to commit or was in the act of committing a crime. The Supreme Court stated that the officer's suspicion had to be "specific" and able to be put into words -- that is to say, the officer could not just say he had a "hunch" that the person searched was about to violate the law: the officer would have to be able to point to a specific characteristic that made him suspect the individual in question.

However, this Supreme Court case eventually led to the allowance of the detainment…

Individual Researc Task. Individual Researc: Overview
Medina vs. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992). Retrieved from Findlaw at:

ttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=505&invol=437

Competency to stand trial (CST)

Medina was convicted of first-degree murder and in te state of California a person must establis is mental incompetency by te standard of a 'preponderance of evidence.' Te U.S. Supreme Court affirmed tis standard of a burden of proof, denying it violated te petitioner Medina's rigt to due process.

Dean v. United States (08-5274). (2009). Retrieved from Cornell University Law Scool at:

ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/tml/08-5274.ZO.tml

Criminal responsibility (mens rea)

Dean was convicted under a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence requirement for firing a andgun during a robbery; Dean argued tat because e did not intend to fire te gun te mandatory minimum did not apply, owever te U.S. Supreme Court eld tat even if te gun went off accidentally, Dean was still liable to te mandatory minimum.

Pennurst State Scool…

The US constitution is a supreme law guiding the conducts of government, people, and organizations in the United States. The U.S. constitution comprises of seven articles that delineates the form of government. However, before the constitution came into force in 1789, there were philosophical thinking that influenced the compilation of the American constitution.
The objective of this essay is to discuss the philosophical influences on the U.S. Constitution.

John Locke was an English Philosopher and his thinking had the great impact on the American constitution. John Locke believed that all people has alienated rights and they are created equal. John Locke was political philosopher was the early proponent of social contract theory believing that there were certain inalienable rights that people should enjoy. Locke believed that it was people who created the government, and people could overthrow the government if they failed to protect their rights. In his philosophical thinking,…

.....controversy of establishing a court system at the creation of the U.S. Constitution centered on the power struggle between states and the creation of a federal, central government with its own court and ability to overrule state court decisions. The Constitution pitted Federalists against Anti-Federalists. The former wanted a central government that acted as the top force over all the states; the latter wanted no central government -- because, after all, the Revolutionaries had just fought a war against a king -- why should they turn around and elect a new one? The idea of sovereign states was such that each state was its own master and local citizens could have more say in their government at a localized, grassroots level. The passing of the Constitution essentially tipped the scales towards the centralized federal government having power over all the states (Brutus No. 1, 1787).
UNIT 1 DISCUSSION (2)

Feld's…

Court System
The basic structure of the United States legal system comes from the Constitution. Constitutions are living documents that lay down principles and rules, as well as overall functions of how law should be used within society. Constitutions tend to be macro in scope, in that they define responsibilities between the three organs of U.S. Government (Judicial, Legislature and Executive). Laws are individual (micro) edicts that are made to define specific issues under the Constitution. The Constitution is the basic framework, or the strategic direction of law; defining relationships and allowing for reasons that are fundamental to other laws (e.g. privacy, search, etc.). Laws are the manner in which the tactics of the legal system and/or philosophy are carried out and used within society. A Constitution defines the theoretical basis of law, while laws incorporate the process of law and allow the government and its officers to use the…

" (AAF, nd)
The Health Maintenance Organization further should "…negotiate with both public and private payers for adequate reimbursement or direct payment to cover the expenses of interpreter services so that they can establish services without burdening physicians…" and the private industry should be "…engaged by medical organizations, including the AAF, and patient advocacy groups to consider innovative ways to provide interpreter services to both employees and the medically underserved." (AAF, nd)

One example of the community healthcare organization is the CCO model is reported as a community cancer screening center model and is stated to be an effective mechanism for facilitating the linkage of investigators and their institutions with the clinical trials network. It is reported that the minority-based CCO was approved initially by the NCI, Division of Cancer revention Board of Scientific Counselors in January 1989. The implementation began in the fall of 1990 and the program was…