Miranda Rights In New York V Quarles

Facts: Miranda gave incriminating evidence during police interrogations without prior notification of their fights under the 5th amendment.

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must inform detained criminal suspects of their constitutional rights prior to police interrogation. This decision was the result of the Miranda v. Arizona case. The case began in 1963 when a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with robbery, rape, and kidnapping. Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to his interrogation. In addition, during his questioning Miranda had no counsel present despite the fact that he had a history of mental instability. Within the two hours he was questioned, Miranda allegedly confessed to the charges. His confession then went on to serve as the only evidence presented at the trial. Miranda was

The facts of the Miranda V. Arizona case, reveal that the suspect/petitioner Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his residence for the alleged abduction and rape of an 18yr old Phoenix woman who ‘s authorities believed was speculative. However, when questioned, the victim provided offices with a description and possible plate number of a vehicle that abducted her. With that, officials tracked the plate and vehicle of a vehicle which resembled that of the alleged suspect. Although the information obtained from the victim was inconclusive, Ernesto Miranda was placed in a lineup to be identified by the victim; however, as the victim was unable to identify Miranda as the attacker, officers maintained their custody of Miranda based on the similarity of the vehicle and his prior

Arizona was Miranda v. Arizona. The case of Miranda v. Arizona involved Ernesto Miranda who through circumstantial evidence was identified, located, taken into custody, and transported to a police station. While at the police station Miranda was interrogated for over two hours without being advised of his rights against self-incrimination, and his right to council. Mr. Miranda was interrogated, and positively identified by the complainant through voice identification. After the interrogation and voice match, Mr. Miranda was asked if he could identify the victim, and Mr. Miranda pointed at the victim and advised that is her. During the interrogation of Mr. Miranda, he admitted to committing the crimes of which he was accused, and signed a written confession. The case against Mr. Miranda was held in 1963 and during the trial the confession was admitted to the court as evidence. Mr. Miranda’s attorney, Alvin Moore, objected to admitting the confession as evidence, however the court overruled and convinced Mr. Miranda of the crimes he was accused, based mostly on the confession. Mr. Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment for the crimes. Mr. Miranda filed for a certiorari, which is a request for a higher court to review a lower court’s decision. In 1965, The Supreme Court agreed to hear Mr. Miranda’s case, along with three other similar cases, where defendants had not been properly advised of their rights against

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 majority opinion in this case was for Miranda, the majority opinion was wrote by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Majority said that Miranda’s confession could not be used in court because the police had not informed Miranda of his rights to a attorney, and against self-incrimination, which are rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the fifth, and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. The fifth amendment says that suspects of crimes have to be informed of their rights during an arrest including the right to remain silent. The sixth amendment says that people have to be informed of right to a fair hearing after the arrest. (Miranda v. Arizona www.kid.laws.com)

Whenever a crime takes place, the police arrive at the scene and must tell the one they arrested the Miranda rights. In world book online: Stanley L. Kutler, Ph.D notes, “Miranda V. Arizona was a case in which the supreme court in the United States limited the power of police to question suspects.” Miranda was a criminal who kidnapped and raped several women. He was not able to understand English very well, for Spanish was his language. When he was arrested, he was interrogated for about two hours. He was not given his rights in Spanish, therefore he did understand what they had told him. This means he was not given his right to an attorney or to remain silent. He then confessed orally and in written form. He then took it to the supreme court.

These amendments make it known that all people have the right to choose whether or not to speak when being questioned, consult with an attorney, be tried by and unbiased jury and be granted a public attorney if necessary (Document E). In the case of Ernesto Miranda, he did not know he had these rights. Therefore, the court could not see his confession as admissible. He was unaware that he could keep quiet if he wanted to and instead his inquisitors pushed him to confess. He did not know he had the right to a lawyer and therefore was on his own deciding how to go about the threat to his future. It has always been tradition that prosecutors could not take confessions into court if investigators used coercion or torture of any kind to gain the confession. This has been in place since the 1600s, as shown by the Laws of Connecticut Colony at the time, which stated “no man shall be forced … to confess any crime against himself” (Document B). This tradition has been present throughout centuries and has only been being more refined and updated as time goes on. The Miranda rulings allowed for yet another opportunity to revamp these rights not only by making sure that people have their rights, but also by making sure that they know explicitly that they have the

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed Miranda’s appeal. It ruled that in the police interrogation of Miranda, the police did not follow the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment says that a criminal suspect has the right not to incriminate himself, or “to be a witness against himself”. The Sixth Amendment says that a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney. Before Miranda’s interrogation, the police did not inform him of these rights. Miranda had no attorney during the interrogation. So Miranda’s conviction was reversed by the

Arizona all started on the date march 3, 1963, when a young eighteen year old girl was kidnapped and raped near Phoenix, Arizona. The police were on the search for the individual who was responsible for this crime for ten days until on the morning of March 13, they found a man named Ernest A. Miranda. Miranda was a young twenty three year old Hispanic man who wasn’t exactly the best educated person out there. Miranda was taken back to the police station in phoenix, Arizona where he was identified in a lineup by the young women who was kidnapped and raped. After being identified two police officers had escorted Miranda to interrogation room number two around eleven thirty am. In the interrogation room the two police failed to notify Miranda of his rights, but still continued to question Miranda of the crime. Miranda was refusing that he committed the crimes of kidnapping and rape until about two hours of interrogation by the two police officers, finally getting the confession they were hoping to get out of Miranda. The confession was in Miranda’s hand writing, explaining in detail of the crime he had committed on March 3, 1963. At the very top of the confession statement was Miranda’s signature below a typed statement stating that the statement was given without threats, promises, or immunity; the statement also stated, "With full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me .”(Miranda v. Arizona 1966) With

Also in the 1960s, the Supreme Court also saw the case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. After the police interrogated Miranda, he signed a confession that led to him being guilty. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda that the police did not advise Miranda of his rights or counsel before interrogation. The Miranda decision reinforced the rule that even the lowest people are entitled to the rights of criminal procedure. The Constitution states

The Miranda v. Arizona case holds that a person in police custody cannot be questioned without being told that he or she has the right to remain silent, he or she has the right to a lawyer (at government expense if the person can’t pay for it, and lastly that anything the person says after knowing of these rights can be used as evidence of guilt at trial. This case makes sure that a person in custody will not give up without knowing the Fifth amendment, which gives the criminal the right to refuse to be a witness against themself and the sixth amendment, which gives the criminal a right to a lawyer. Without these two fundamental rights, the court will rule the case “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be used for the product of their free choice.”

As a result of the Miranda case the police must give warnings to all suspects when they have to answer questions related to a criminal case. The Miranda warnings are based on the Fifth Amendment right to be protected from self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment that gives all suspects the right to have an attorney. The Miranda Warnings consist of telling suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to have an attorney present before and during questioning, and if they can’t afford an attorney one will be provided for them.

At first glance this case can be very confusing. How could someone get away with kidnapping and rape? Miranda even confessed! Reynolds gave an example in his article of a criminal that was arrested for a serious assault. The criminal confessed without knowing he did not have to. The judge thew out his confession and the criminal walked a free man. This is a perfect example of why criminals arrested should be read their rights.