Case Study: Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is a case that appeared in the United States Supreme Court, it was a landmark decision since it was passed at 5-4. It was argued by the courts questioning the exculpatory statements which were part of the response given by defendant while he was interrogated at the custody of police. The information offered by the defendant was unclear as whether to proceed to the trial, on condition that the defendant was fully informed on the attributes of consulting an attorney (Lanier, 2013). The prosecution argued that the defendant had the right of consulting an attorney during questioning and before questioning and that the defendant had expressive rights against any possibilities of self-incrimination during and prior questioning by the police (Leo, 2008). The defendant had the just of understanding the rights; in this case the defendant was not fully informed on his rights.
It was noted that waiving the rights had a significant impact in the United States among the law enforcement agencies. The rights were later referred to as the Miranda rights. Miranda rights has been influential in making sure that defendants are subjected to procedures that make sure that the suspected persons are fully informed on their rights while on custody (Lanier, 2013). The supreme courts of the United States while setting aside on the Miranda rights consolidated the case with three other cases identifying with Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States and California v. Stewart.
Miranda rights are also known as Miranda warning, the rights incorporates warnings that are given by the United States police to the suspects of criminal activities as part of the custodial interrogation or police custody. The warnings are given before the interrogation takes place in preserving acceptability of the defendant’s statements in the criminal proceedings (Leo, 2008). Miranda ruling has made it sure that the defendant is reminded and wholly aware of the rights in place as directed by the constitution of the United States. The process is mainly referred to as Mirandizing a suspect, the warning is given formally, defendants has the rights of invoking the rights at any stage.
According to the Berghuis v. Thompkins case of 2010 at the United States Supreme Court, the criminal suspects were subjected to the Miranda rights but they chose to keep silent, therefore the roles of an attorney were bypassed. In the case, it was considered that the defendants had a waiver of rights; there were no voluntary statements that could be used as evidence. Legal aid movement of the 1960’s was influential in providing the defendants with the aid of legal services. The collective efforts were supported by a number of bar associations in the region (Lanier, 2013). The civil realm led to the formation of the Legal Services Corporation in the United States that was chaired by the Lyndon Baines Johnson president at the Great Society Program. A case that generated controversy was Escubedo v. Illinois that shunned the Miranda rights, a counsel was not involved in the police interrogation, a move that questioned the practices of the police during investigations; the police practices were considered unjust and barbaric.
Ernesto Miranda got arrested in March 3rd 1963 at Phoenix Police Department; Miranda was linked to rape after kidnapping an eighteen year old girl. Miranda accepted the charges at the police interrogation and went ahead to sign a confession. The police did not advise Miranda on his right to keep silent or seek the services of a counsel. Miranda was not informed that the statements he provided could be applied against him in the courts of law (Leo, 2008). Miranda was put under death sentence. There were arguments that stated that Miranda did not offer the information voluntarily, a move that triggered the Miranda rights or the Miranda warnings. A waiver is considered if the defendant chooses to keep silent and not seek the legal counsel at the same time (Lanier, 2013).
Miranda rights has shaped the destiny of cases afterwards, an example is the Dickerson v. U.S. 530 U.S. 428 (2000) that upheld and supported the Miranda rights, and that the warnings must be read to the defendants (Lanier, 2013). The court case went ahead in striking down the federal statute that was in place to destabilize the Miranda v. Arizona. The United States courts went ahead in arguing that both parties in the case did not adhere to the constitutionality of the United States. This case considered 18 U.S.C. 3501 statute. The courts sort the services of Warren E. Burger, Antonin Scalia and Paul Cassell in interpreting that part of the law.
As the legal adviser at the local police department, I would encourage Miranda rights at the criminal investigations in making sure that the detectives are fully compliant with the Miranda warnings. The first step is buying in the support of the police officers by building effective teams. There are a number of benefits attached to the Miranda warnings; the first one indicates that the suspect has the rights of saying anything without fearing the police. Miranda rights are available to the suspects and guaranteed by the fifth and the sixth amendments of the United States constitution (Lanier, 2013). Miranda rights on the other hand offer the suspect expressive rights of keeping silent. Suspects has the right of an attorney or be offered with an attorney that is appointed by the court if the defendant cannot afford. Miranda rights must be read in full to the defendant and that the defendant must understand them. This has been influential in making sure that the police do not practice unjust and unfair practices. Building effective teams among the investigators will encourage compliant to the Miranda rights.
Lanier, L. (2013). Someone Else’s Daughter, A Miranda’s Rights Mystery. Seattle, Washington D. C.: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Leo, R. A. (2008). Police Interogation and American Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.[order_calculator]