Miranda v Arizona Case Brief
Facts:
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.
Issue/s:
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.
Rules:
It is essential
that government authorities inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment Rights
under the Constitution before an arrest and or interrogation.
Application:
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.
This is a sample Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief from smartessaywriters.com – the leading provider of reliable and affordable essay writing services and research paper writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom
No comments:
Post a Comment