Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief
Miranda v Arizona Case Brief
This is a consolidated case wherein The Supreme Court of the United States combined four separate cases into one. The cases all involved the negligence of arresting officers to inform the defendants about their rights. In all of them, the defendants voluntarily offered incriminating evidence themselves or admitted to their guilt without having been notified beforehand regarding their Fifth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution..
In the case of Ernesto Miranda, the accused was arrested for the charges of kidnapping as well as rape. It was noted that Mr. Miranda was an immigrant and that he signed a confession to the allegations against him after around 2 hours of investigations. The officers who arrested him did not notify him of his rights before or after his arrest. However, the statement that he signed contained a statement that he was actually aware of his rights.
In the case of Michael Vignera, the accused was arrested for the charge of robbery. He orally admitted to the alleged robbery after his arrest to the first officer then. After subsequently being held in detention for 8 hours, he made another admission to the district attorney. In this case, there was no evidence that he was informed of his Fifth Amendment rights.
In the case of Carl Calvin Westover, he accused was arrested for two counts of robbery. Upon detention, he was questioned by local police for more than 14 hours. He was subsequently handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigations agents. They were able to obtain a signed confession from him. However, he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment rights.
In the case of Roy Allen Stewart, he and some members of his family were arrested for alleged purse snatching incidents, After 9 hours of interrogations, he admitted to the crimes. There was no evidence that he was made aware of his Fifth Amendment rights and there was also no evidence against his other family members.
The issue is whether or not it is needed to inform an individual of their Fifth Amendment Rights prior to an arrest and investigation following an arrest.
It is essential that government authorities inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment Rights under the Constitution before an arrest and or interrogation.
YES. It is very important that the government notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment rights. Upon arrest, especially, their right to remain silent should be explained to them. It should be explained that anything that they say could be used against them in court and that they have a right to counsel and that they have a right to have counsel appointed to them in cases where it is necessary. The reading or information of these rights to an accused is vital since if the accused is not informed of these, anything admitted by accused during an investigation shall be deemed as not admissible in court. Not informing the accused of these rights is fatal to any case. This is because the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is directly jeopardized when an individual is arrested and deprived of his freedom or taken into custody. One of the purposes of such a rule is to allow an individual o willingly, knowingly and intelligently waive the said rights. Only then can he subsequently agree to answer questions and or make a statement. If a person, after being informed of the said rights then chooses to remain silent during interrogation or chooses not to speak without aid from his counsel, then the interrogation must be stopped until such a time where his counsel is present. The rule is that silence is not a presumption of a waiver of the aforementioned rights. . it hours of interrogations, he admitted to the crimes fth Amendment rights and there was also no evidence against his other