What is the significance of miranda v. arizona VideoMiranda vs Arizona: US History Review what is the significance of miranda v. arizona.
The Supreme Court in most countries is responsible for exclusively hearing appeals of various legal issues.
Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?
They have been given authority by the constitution to do the following. They check the actions of the president as well as that of the Congress; they are the final judge of all cases that involve the Congress and have the right to correct the head of state, the government or the Congress whenever their actions do not comply with the constitution.
However, in this paper, I will be discussing the famous Miranda v Arizona case. Arizona is actually a small state to the south-west region the United Agizona. The thesis of the statement is as follows.
Please Sign In or Register
On 13th Marchthe Phoenix police department arrested a man by the what is the significance of miranda v. arizona Ernesto Miranda. This arrest was based on certain circumstantial evidence that linked Mirannda to the kidnap and rape of an year-old defenseless woman about 10 years earlier. Miranda, under police custody, was interrogated for over 2 hours and check this out signed a confession of rape charges that included the following statement: I hereby swear that this statement I am making is voluntary and out of my own free will. I made this statement without being threatened, submitted to coercion or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of my legal rights. I also understand that any statement I make will be used v me in a court of law. In true sense, Mr. Miranda was not informed of his legal rights of counsel; he was also not informed of his rights to remain silent.
In addition, Miranda was not informed that all his actions and words would be used against him in a court of law. Alvin Moore was the courts appointed a lawyer for Ernesto Morgan, The lawyer objected the facts arguing that his confession was not entirely voluntarily based on the above information.
Thus, the evidence should be excluded. The judge further sentenced Miranda to a year imprisonment. Moore took a step further and filed his appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that the confession Miranda made was not entirely voluntary. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed his appeal claiming that Miranda personally did not request for an attorney. The Miranda rights came to be after the historic event of the case of Miranda v Arizona. Therefore, in the Supreme Court decided to have a 5th amendment in the constitution known as the Miranda rights.
These rights tbe to inform the criminal suspects about what actions they are allowed to take under police custody. Arizoona Fifth Amendment now demands the police to tell a suspect the following four things. This right means that one can either choose to speak up and defend himself or point fingers at others.
Either way, one can also choose to keep quiet about all allegations. Choosing to speak or not to speak while being arrested is a constitutional right for the suspect. This right actually means what whatever allegation, threat; evidence and additional information among other statements that may be made by the criminal suspect will be used as evidence in a court of law, against his defense. This right is explaining the first statement on the right of a person to keep quiet or remain silent. Therefore, a person who is being arrested can choose to remain silent because any statement that comes out of his mouth will be used against him.
This right means that the suspect, even under police custody should be allowed to contact and converse with their attorney.
They have legal rights to communicate with them, in case they need any help from them. The court must provide a lawyer for such people because they have legal rights to obtain a lawyer who will defend them. All these four rights must be communicated to the suspect at the point of arrest.
Failure to explain the Miranda rights to the suspect before questioning begins will result in the disregarding all the statements the suspect may make after questioning. All evidence that may have been gathered from the suspect without full knowledge of his rights or due arzona of understanding of the Miranda rights will result in the statement being thrown away. This is because the statements made will be assumed to have been made involuntary. This made a landmark because of its major impact on interpreting the laws of the US.]