1984: Totalitarian Government

An arrest of “Ernesto Miranda” on a kidnapping and rape case that led to him signing a confession without being told his right to legal counsel, which in turn the officers whom took his confession tried to use the paper he signed along with the typed out confession; in turn this was considered to be incriminating evidence against Miranda because he was not notified of his rights under the fifth amendment.

Even though Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to prison and spent 11years in the correctional system, his case became famous and obtained historical significance. Specifically, the society was alarmed by the increasing police powers and negligence on the duty, which may lead to self-incrimination (Zalman, 2010). Given that Miranda was not aware of his Fifth Amendment right and was not given any warning, the police certainly violated the law; therefore, the prosecution could not have utilized Miranda’s confession as the evidence in a criminal trial. This fact was later used in the newspapers and other media to create a controversy. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights gained significant attention in public because they provided suspected persons

This case brief was written in regards to Miranda v. Arizona, in which The Supreme Court of the United States considered the facts of four separate cases, all of which involved incriminating evidence obtained during official police interrogations. In all four cases Government officials did not advise the individuals, who were under custodial detention, of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. Individuals who are being questioned under a custodial police interrogation are protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment .The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? These are all questions evolving from the recent Miranda V Arizona court case. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home on March 13th, 1963 and brought to a police station. They had reason to believe he had connection to a kidnapping and rape, along with theft and armed robbery. The victim of the kidnapping could not recognize Miranda as her attacker, so the police escorted Miranda to an interrogation room. Miranda was interrogated for two hours, and during these two hours the police acquired a written confession to the crime from Miranda. Of course, Miranda went to trial for his actions, but during the trial, Miranda’s attorney argued in court that since the police admitted to not explaining Miranda’s rights to him, this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights. Even with all of this Miranda’s written confession was still used as evidence against him in court.

The importance of the Fifth Amendment versus legal loopholes are a vital key to making America safe. Legal loopholes allow guilty people to roam the streets freely, while people who were not given the same option to confess to a crime that he or she did not commit. It is crucial that individuals are given their rights before they have a chance to speak.

It is the right of every citizen, not to be forced to talk to law enforcement officers or the courts, if it self incriminates the person that is being questioned. At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify.[7] Basically, what this means is that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand if he or she is not willing to do so to begin with. On the other hand, if a defendant does choose to testify he or she cannot pick and choose the question that they would like to answer. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the

The Supreme Court founded their decision on the Fifth Amendment rather than the Sixth Amendment due to the intimidating nature of the custodial interrogation by law enforcement. No admission could be permissible under the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had relinquished their rights. The person in custody must, prior to being questioned be clearly informed of their right to remain silent and that whatever they say will be held against them in court. They must be informed that they have the right to consult with an attorney and that

As we get to understand the Sixth Amendment and the impact it has on individuals who are subject to interrogation and their own confessions to a crime, we have to wonder why it is so important for us to understand our rights. There are a few ways that our verbal statements could be used against us once we are placed into an interrogation room and questioned, but why do we put so much emphasis on the important of these types of statements? Before we can explain how the sixth amendments can impact interrogations’ and confessions we first have to understand that before the Sixth Amendment can come in to play, the Fifth Amendment is the one that setup the Sixth Amendment to be addressed,

The Fifth amendment was made, in 1791. to make sure that no one could be tried for the same reason more than once. This was important to include it in the declaration of independence to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to influence the people’s rights to life, liberty, and property. In the Chambers vs Florida case, men were accused of a murder because of their skin color and were proved innocent and this was considered violated do to the fifth amendment. In another case called Ashcraft v. Tennessee, had included a man who was a suspect of the tennessee police and was then forced to a false confession by them, in an interrogation, which violated his wright given by the fifth amendment. In a similar case called Miranda v. Arizona, a man was sent to an interrogation and was not notified of his rights with a warning, which violates the

The Fifth Amendment as it pertains to confessions, states that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves. The Fifth Amendment was created to protect individuals against self-incrimination, and any confession obtained when it is in violation of the Amendment will be inadmissible in court. The case Miranda v. Arizona involves Ernesto Miranda who was arrested based on evidence linking him to a kidnapping and rape. Miranda signed a confession to the rape, but he was never told his right to counsel, his right to remain silent, and that his statements would be used against him during the interrogation before being presented the confession form. His lawyer argued that the

The Constitution is a living, breathing document, so it evolves and develops over time. Looking at key court cases from the past, the evolution of the right can be analyzed further, but first let us come back to Chief Justice John Marshall’s words about how third parties in all fundamental fairness can claim the right to "plead the fifth," and use the self-incrimination clause, while keeping in regard the actions of others, and not just themselves. What he said was used in both the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, and in the treason case of Aaron Burr. However, this practice is no longer allowed, because "pleading the fifth" has been reinterpreted to protect only oneself.

In 1966 Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Because of some very tricky loopholes, Miranda walked away a free man. This was because The Supreme Court ruled that his Fifth Amendment was violated. Since then, anytime someone gets arrested they are read their rights, of Miranda Rights which prevents something like what happened in 1966.

The fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination, where you do not have to say anything in a court of law that may implicate your guilt. A person may not understand

Miranda appealed to the court and they declined his request for appeals, but when he appealed U.S. Supreme Court said in a 5 to 4 decision that the prosecution could not use Miranda’s confession as evidence because he was not read him his rights to an attorney and self-incrimination. The Constitution’s 5th amendment compels police to give these warnings which lets the criminal suspect the right to refuse to be a witness against him or herself.

During an arrest the accused offender is given their Miranda rights, and has the right to plead the fifth amendment in order to avoid self-incrimination. Many accused offenders who may not be aware of their rights often expose themselves to unlawful incrimination, and may agree to crimes that they know that they did not commit because they are afraid of law enforcement.