{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Last part of poly sci material

Last part of poly sci material - Miranda V Arizona...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Miranda V. Arizona - Exclusionary rule: the courts decision to exclude from evidence anything obtained illegally or in violation of the person’s constitutional rights - Miranda – indigent, Mexican man who is accused of sexually assaulting and kidnapping a woman. They find him after getting a description from the woman. He’s not very intelligent, and very disturbed. Without much pressure, he gives in and confesses - His lawyer appeals and they say that they compelled him to bear witness against himself. - Miranda did not ask for counsel, didn’t resist questioning. He didn’t even use any psychological ploys. - Prior to this case, the court used a case by case analysis to determine whether or not coercion was present or not in an investigation. - The court says that this is not adequate though because on the one hand it is not a very clear standard for the police. The police need to know what they can and cant do. - In many cases, the facts are not clear enough. Police can do a lot to obscure facts. - The court says that the have to replace the vague rules, unenforceable standards. They decide to institute guidelines for a person accused of a crime. These rules are called the Miranda rules. They think this is something that could work. - “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cant afford one we will provide you with one. Do you understand these rights as I have explained them to you?” This is designed to make sure that the person knows his rights if he enters interrogation. - The court assumes that a lot of people don’t know their rights and therefore never claim them. - No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Was Miranda compelled to be a witness against himself. - If you are asking someone about they crime they committed, you cannot apply any pressure. How do you reconcile the obvious need for police and the pressure put on for a confession?
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
- They make interrogation ok if you inform them of your rights, make sure they know their rights, that should mitigate the psychological pressure - The ruling: In the absence of a warning, the court will assume that any testimony or evidence rendered from the person was coerced, no matter what the actual circumstances were. - Every interaction needs to be recorded so that there is no way that the cops or the person is lying. - What kind of confession would be ok? It would have to be spontaneous. This would comport with the courts conception of free will. - Why exclude illegal obtained evidence? Let’s say you’re looking for a kidnapped child. The police, without a warrant, kick down some guy’s door. He’s not home but they’re sure he did it. They find photographs of the missing girl. This is good evidence that the guy was in contact with the girl on the day. The guy knew where the girl was.
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 10

Last part of poly sci material - Miranda V Arizona...

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

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