CCJS-100, 204, Bauer, Danielle, Case Briefs Assignment

CCJS-100, 204, Bauer, Danielle, Case Briefs Assignment -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bauer1 Danielle Bauer Heather Harris CCJS 100 – Section 0204 October 8, 2009 UID- 110601081 Case Briefs Miranda v. Arizona_______________________________________________________ One of the most important cases in US history, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) addresses the importance of being informed your rights prior to police investigation. Background and Initial Trial In 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery. When brought to the police station Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to their questioning of what had happened. Since he was unaware of his rights, such as the right to remain silent, Miranda allegedly confessed to what he had done. “ Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present,” (McBride, 2006) was convicted of both rape and murder. His conviction consisted of 20 to 30 years in prison. Prior to the conviction, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court claiming that the ”police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” (McBride, 2006). Once again, he was found guilty and his conviction was upheld. The Supreme Court Decision In 1966, the US Supreme Court reviewed Miranda' s appeal. In a 5-4 decision
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Bauer2 written by Chief Justice Earl Warren (McBride, 2006) , the Supreme Court reversed his conviction and stated that his confession was not allowed to be used in court. Warren stated that the information used in Miranda's case was unlawfully obtained because the police had failed to inform Miranda of his rights. “ The police have a duty to give these warnings and is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney” (McBride, 2006). In addition, the Supreme Court recognized that the police's use of intimidation to obtain Miranda's confessions was illegal. Furthermore, Miranda did not have an attorney present. According to Chief Justice Warren, an attorney enables "the defendant under otherwise compelling circumstances to tell his story without fear, effectively, and in a way that eliminates the evils in the interrogations process” (McBride, 2006). Impact of the Decision This was an important case and has had a tremendous impact on our judicial system. Since than, every defendant who is being interrogated and detained must be told their rights, which is now known as the “Miranda Rights.” These rights ensure that people in custody realize they do not have to talk to the police and that they have the right to an attorney. The readings of these rights are still enforced today and police are required to read them to every suspect prior to questioning or interrogation. Conclusion
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 14

CCJS-100, 204, Bauer, Danielle, Case Briefs Assignment -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online