Miranda V. Arizona

Court Brief Miranda v. Arizona Citation: Miranda? v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart, Supreme Court of the United States, 1966. 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. Relief Sought: Miranda was violated the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel.
Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule that states all evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court and the? Gideon? rule that states that all felony defendants have the right to an attorney while prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was false, and he deserved a new trial. Facts: In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested in his home, taken to the police station for being accused in a sexual assult case.
Once identified by the victim he was taken into an interrogation room where he was to give his confession but Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. He did though, sign a typed disclaimer that stated he had “full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me,” and that he had knowingly waived those rights. Two weeks later at a preliminary hearing, Miranda again was denied counsel. At his trial he did have a lawyer, whose objections to the use of Miranda’s signed confession as evidence were overruled.

Finding (Holding) of the Court: ? This case held that government authorities need to inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Reasoning: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements from secure interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of routine defenses. The Court noted that “the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented” and that “the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition. The Court specifically outlined the importance of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during interrogations. Dissenting Opinions: 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. J.
Harlan further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination. Justice Byron White 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. Legal Terms: self- incrimination-the? act? of? incriminating? oneself? or? exposing? oneself? to? prosecution, especially? by? giving? evidence? or? testimony Interrogation- to? ask? questions? of? (a? erson),? sometimes? to? seek? answersor? information? that? the? person? questioned? considers? personalor? secret. Implications: Miranda v. Arizona established the importance of informing defendants of their legal rights before they are arrested in order to ensure due process.? The? Miranda vs. Arizona? case was significant because it established that many Americans did/do not know their rights granted to them by the Bill of Rights, especially those pertaining to police investigation and trial, and that when arrested people have the right to be informed of these very significant rights.?
The Court decided a confession is? involuntary? unless the person is clearly informed of his or her right to remain silent, to have an attorney present during questioning, and have an attorney provided free if he can’t afford one. Miranda didn’t have a lawyer present when questioned and wasn’t aware this was an option; therefore, his confession was excluded from evidence and the conviction was overturned.?