Miranda v Arizona Essay

Citation 384 U.S. 436, 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) Brief Fact Summary Self-incriminating usher was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution. Synopsis of Rule of Law Authorities of the Government must give notice suspects of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest.Facts The Supreme Court of the United States consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of demo obtained during police interrogations. * The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested for puss and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not apprise Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights. * The sulphur Defendant, Michael Vignera, was arrested for robbery . Mr. Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest, and he was held in detention for eight hours before he made an admission to an assistant territorial dominion attorney. There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.* The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover, was arrested for two robberies. Mr. Westover was questioned over fourteen hours by local police, and then was handed to federal official Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, who were able to get signed confessions from Mr. Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr. Westover of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. * The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart, was arrested, along with members of his family (although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his family) for a series of purse snatches. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart was notified of his rights.After nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes. Issue Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants? Held The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights, specifically their right to remain silent an explanation that anything they theorize could be used against them in court their right to an attorney and their right to have an attorney appointed to represent them if necessary. Without this notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation exit not be admissible in court.Dissent Justice Tom Clark argued that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution would apply to interrogations. There is not enough evidence to demonstrate a need to apply a new rule as the majority finds here. The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan also argues that the Due Process Clauses should apply. Harlan further argues tha t the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was not intended to forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination. Justice Byron dust coat argued that there is no historical support for broadening the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to include the rights that the majority extends in their decision. The majority is making new law with their holding. Argued February 28, blemish 1, and March 2, 1966Decided June 13, 1966 Vote 5-4 in favor of Defendants Conclusion The majority notes that once an individual chooses to remain silent or asks to first see an attorney, any interrogation should cease. Further, the individual has the right to stop the interrogation at any time, and the government will not be allowed to argue for an exception to the notification rule. complete (Miranda v. Arizona) After the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Miranda, the State of Arizona retried him. Miranda was convicted in the second trial by Arizona and sentenced to 20-30 years the confession by Miranda was not introduced as part of evidence.