CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitutional Law Miranda v Arizona Case

Constitutional Law Miranda v Arizona Case

Introduction

The government uses criminal law as part of the judicial system to prosecute a person accused of an illegal act. In a criminal trial, the culprits get punishment for the commitment of a serious crime. The criminal court has the right to impose fine and issue a sentence of imprisonment for on that particular individual. This paper presents an analytical discussion on authenticity of American Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona case. The historic decision on part of the court stands till now and it means that criminal suspects have the right to remain silent. Thus the decision of the court was in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Baker, 1983).

Background

The case of Miranda is known to all in the pronunciation of a warning during the arrest of an individual, including serving on his right to silence and to benefit from a lawyer. Confessions as evidence are admissible if the prisoner has, during his testimony, knowledge of their rights (Baker, 1983).

Facts of the Case

In 1962, the Phoenix police arrested a suspect, named, Ernesto Miranda, on charges of abduction and rape of several girls. In 1963, the police managed to arrest Miranda on evidence of a victim. The victim was successful in identifying Miranda's car. He confesses, without any knowledge regarding his rights as a suspect prisoner, the allegations during questioning. At trial, his confession will be used as a means of evidence against him. He will be sentenced for kidnapping and rape. His lawyer appeals to the Supreme Court of Arizona on the basis of the inadmissibility of confessions of his client without any success and in 1965, the decision of the Court holds and Miranda gets the sentence (Jacobs, 1975).

Judgment

In 1966, the Supreme Court decides to guarantee the rights of the respondent, since the interrogation is inherently coercive. The Court declares: (Jacobs, 1975).

“The persons in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed of their right to remain silent and that anything he or she says may be used against her in court and must be clearly informed that “she has the right to counsel during interrogation, and that if she does not afford a lawyer will be appointed ex officio.”

In Miranda's case, there was a violation of rights during the interrogation and consequently, the Court invalidated the ...