Miranda V/s Arizona

Miranda V/s Arizona

Introduction

The Miranda v. Arizona case was a milestone decision taken by the US supreme court, which was passed by 5- 4 majority. The court held that both the exculpatory and inculpatory statements passed in reflection to the interrogation by the defendant kept in police custody will be acceptable at trial, only when the prosecution can show the defendant was aware of the right to seek advice from an attorney earlier and during questioning of the right against discrimination before the police has questioned the defendant. It is compulsory that the defendant should not only understand these rights, but also willingly ignore them. This decision had greatly impacted the law enforcement authorities of USA, as it became part of regular police treatment for ensuring the suspects were made well aware of their human rights.

Discussion

1. Title and Citation

The case was related to sexual assault and kidnapping took place in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. The victim identified the culprit therefore a case was filed against 23 years old Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested by police from his home. Miranda was not aware of his right to take guidance before the interrogation. He was pressurized by the authorities to sign a disclaimer, stating his confession against his sin. That disclaimer provides evidence that Miranda was aware of all the legal rights he could use and he himself had surrendered those rights. Miranda was declared convicted by the court due to kidnapping and rape charges against him. (Lewis, 1996)

2. Facts of the Case

This case is based on the following facts:

The supreme court of USA combined 4 different cases with the issues related to the acceptability of proof attained during police questioning.

The 1st defendant, Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested by the police authority for rape and kidnapping case. Miranda was not US national therefore; he was unaware of his rights. It was the duty of investigation team to inform him about his legal right. He signed a disclaimer which states that “he is aware of all his legal rights” although he was not.

The 2nd defendant was Michael Vignera, who was arrested for robbery case. Vignera recorded his statement that his had done that robbery. He was kept in detention for about eight hours before he could make an admission to an assistant public prosecutor. No evidence was found that could reflect about the notification of Fifth Amendment rights to him by officials.

The 3rd defendant, Carl Calvin Westover, was also arrested for two robbery cases. Westover was interrogated for about fourteen hours by local police and then he was handed over to FBI agents. The same issue was found in this case that he was not informed about his legal rights and the confession was signed.

The 4th defendant, Roy Allen Stewart, was arrested along with other members of his family for a chain of purse snatch cases. Although his family was not found convicted. Once again In this case there is no proof of notification related to Roy and his ...