Major Decisions-Miranda v Arizona

Major Decisions-Miranda v Arizona


Major Decisions-Miranda v Arizona

The Miranda
v. Arizona case is one that was considered to be as a result of the legal aid
movement of the 1960s. The concept of the movement was to basically provide
those accused of crimes with the legal support they required on their behalf.
Among other
 Supreme Court decisions, Miranda v. Arizona
was one of the most important cases to arise in United States history. Its
final decision would essentially affect various levels of the United States Government,
namely law enforcement. Furthermore, the final verdict would also become a
championing effort for the Civil Rights Movement, as its coverage by the media
was quite extensive and would become feted as a victory statement for citizen’s
rights in the United States (See Also: Human Rights and Entitlements

Miranda v. Arizona deals with several aspects of provisions set
forth by the United States Constitution and served to provide for an
application of Constitutional law that would be more visible among the civilian
populations of the country. The case of Miranda v. Arizona deals with a man
named Ernesto Miranda that was arrested for rape and kidnapping charges and
brought in for questioning and interrogation.

After hours of interrogation,
Miranda would finally sign a written confession that also affirmed that he was
made fully aware of his legal rights and had waived them voluntarily. However,
Miranda was never made aware of his rights to an attorney or his right to
remain silent prior to being interrogated. Miranda’s defense motioned to have
his written confession to be inadmissible in the courts as evidence. This would
be overruled by the State courts, which would lead to an appeal to the Supreme

The crux of the arguments for
Miranda’s defense would lie in the fact that the law enforcement officials
would have violated the accused’s Fifth Amendment
 and Sixth Amendment rights, as well as failure to
comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
. The uproar over the Miranda v. Arizona
case is largely due to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the fact that
Amendments under the Bill of Rights
 of the Constitution were being
violated only added to its fervor and publicity.

The Supreme Court would hear the Miranda v. Arizona case under
Chief Justice Earl Warren, who eventually overruled the conviction and sentencing
of Miranda by the Arizona State courts. Warren would resolve that the
confession could not be considered admissible as evidence due to the fact that
it was in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution.

Infringement of Fifth Amendment
would be in relation to the self-incrimination clause, while the violation of
the Sixth Amendment was in respects to the right to an attorney. Due to the
interrogation tactics and practices of the involved law enforcement officials
and the fact that Miranda was never made aware his rights to remain silent and
to an attorney, the written confession as signed would be considered null due
to such confession being, therefore, coerced or unlawfully forced.

Warren would conclude that any
person in custody subject to an interrogation must be fully aware of his rights
prior to any such interrogation taking place. Furthermore, the accused must
also fully understand those rights and the fact that he/she also has the right
to waive such rights.

The rendering of the decision of Miranda v. Arizona would then
become implemented into law, in which any person arrested for a crime must be
made aware of his rights to due process. The listing and verbal communication
from police to the suspect or accused would become known as Miranda Rights.

The rendering of this decision
would also have further Constitutional implications in which other Supreme
Court cases would try to use Miranda rights as precedence or oppose the ruling
altogether, citing that such practice gives the opportunity for criminals to
slip away from justice due to a provisional technicality. Furthermore, the
ruling of Miranda v. Arizona also helped re-establish the importance of the
Constitution’s Bill of Rights
 as fundamental human and civil
rights guaranteed to the people of the United States.

Warren’s interpretation of the
Constitution also helped strengthen the “loose interpretation” of the
Constitution that had been implemented in other cases by John Marshall, such as
Gibbons v. Ogden
another landmark Supreme Court case.




Related Articles

Kumbaya Business Names, Company Names, Domain Names

Kumbaya Company Names

Read previous post:
Understanding the 17th Amendment