Arguments Against Inmate Estrada

At approximately 1905 hours, while escorting Inmate Brodsky (V1) I Officer Shoemaker B3008 asked him if he wanted Administrative Restrictive Housing Inmate Brodsky (V1) refused and signed the Administrative Restrictive Housing Refusal form. I then asked Inmate Brodsky (V1) wanted to aid in prosecution and he said, “Yes". Inmate Brodsky (V1) also stated he would fill out a voluntary witness statement. Once Inmate Brodsky (V1) was informed he is scheduled for release he refused to turn in the voluntary witness statement.

At about 1620 hours I read Inmate Dibbern his read their Miranda Rights rights from my standard issue MCSO Miranda Rights card. When asked if he understood his rights, he said, "Yes." When asked if he would answer my questions he answered, "Yes."

The outline of the Fare v. Michael C. and the facts, issue, and court holding are that a 16-year-old boy was taken into custody by police on suspicion of murder. Respondent Michael C., a juvenile, was under suspicion for murder. Brought to the Van Nuys, California police station for questioning, Michael requested to speak to his probation officer at the beginning of the interrogation. Michael was already on probation with the juvenile courts for things he had done pervious. Also Michael request to speak with his probation officer. The rules of the Miranda states that if a person wishes to remain silent or want to talk to his or her attorney, the questioning office has to cease until the asking person appears. Michael changed his statement and

At approximately 1715 hours, I read Inmate Olson his Miranda Rights through my MSCO standard issued Miranda Rights card. I asked his if he understood his rights he stated "Yes". I also asked if he would answer my questions voluntarily he stated "Yes". I then proceeded to ask him what happened in the bathroom of Durango 7 and he stated " I can’t take being in jail, I rather die than be in here".

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

Ernesto Miranda was a poor man who lived in Arizona majority of his life and who always had a run in with the law. Miranda has been arrested before for armed robbery and was sentenced to a year in a reform school. In the case against him in Arizona, Miranda was very aware of his rights and knew he didn’t have to say anything during interrogation or sign a paper

At approximately 2012 Hours Sergeant Everett B1626 notified me to get pictures of all inmates who had any marks or visible injuries that were involved in the multiple inmate fight.

A person in custody shouldn’t be given their Miranda warnings before being asked consent to search because the arresting officer(s) aren’t supposed to expect the defendant to know these rights. Moreover, they have not begun the interrogation which is one of the requirements for reading of the Miranda warnings. The defendant is not free to go when under custodial interrogation, but is when obtaining a consent to search which is why there are no elaborate

This case had to do with Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was in interrogation with the police and he was not told about his rights to remain silent and the right to counsel. Even though he was not informed of his rights he still signed a confession saying that what he said what he said to the police in the interrogation was completely voluntary. On the top of each page was the statement, “I, Ernesto A. Miranda, do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” He was not fully acknowledged of his rights until 1:30 when he was signing his confession after a two hour long interrogation. This case

In 1966 , Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping , and robbery. The problem was that Miranda was not informed of his rights before the police interrogation and while the two hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to committing the crimes which police recorded without Mirandas Knowledge. McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." PBS. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.. Miranda who did not even finish the 9th grade and also is known to have a history of being mentally unstable, who did not have any counsel by his side during the interrogation. In court at his trial the prosecution’s case was focused mainly of his confession and thats about it, no matter what in

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

Knowing ones rights when being arrested is very important, it is the best way to avoid self incrimination. The government has done a good job in assuring that all individuals who are arrested are read their Miranda rights and made fully aware of the rights that they are guaranteed as well as providing fair trial to all who are accused of a crime based on the rule set by the presumption of innocence: “innocent until proven guilty”. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the Miranda rights were

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of