100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 5 pages.
After reading the landmark decisions of Plessy v. Ferguson,163 U.S. 537 (1896) and Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436 (1966), discuss the following in a paperWhat factors influenced each of these decisions?oRead the dissenting opinions as well.oExplore to what extent political ideology influences constitutional law.oTo support your points, identify specific examples in the language of both the decisions and the dissents.Examine the political climate when both cases were decided.oLook at what philosophical underpinnings may have influenced the thinking of the court of the respective eras of these cases. How did the courts in each era read the U.S. Constitution differently?Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.436(1966), was a landmark decisionof the United States Supreme Court. In a 5–4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatoryand exculpatorystatements made in response to interrogationby a defendantin policecustody will be admissible at trialonly if the prosecutioncan show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorneybefore and during questioning and of the right against self-incriminationbefore police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda rightspart of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court decided Mirandawith three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart.The Miranda warning(often abbreviated to "Miranda," or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordancewith the Mirandaruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview. The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards i.e. Miranda rights are"custody" and "interrogation." Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.Per the U.S. Supreme Court decision Berghuis v. Thompkins(June 1, 2010), criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney, but choose notto "unambiguously" invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and which may be used in evidence.
e Democrats."Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.