Miranda v. Arizona: Case Brief

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Facts
Issue
Holding
Rationale
Concurring Opinions
Dissenting Opinions
References

Facts

The case involved the questioning of police conduct during arrest and interrogation. Police arrested Miranda after suspecting him of involvement in a robbery incidence. However, instead of law enforcing agents reading to him his rights as concerned confessing or giving of evidence and using services of an attorney, they used force to make him confess, something that violated his rights constitutionally. In addition, police denied him a chance of consulting an attorney, something they could have informed him although he never requested for one. Using evidence collected from him of raping some women some days early, the court convicted him of rape and murder hence, sentencing him to two jail terms that were to run parallel to each other; 20 and 30 years respectively. Later on, because he was not content with the nature in which the court had handled his case, He filed an appeal in the Arizona supreme court, something that led to the overturning of the case, hence granting him his freedom. The lower courts defended their opinion by arguing that, his confession was enough to convict him. In addition, the fact that he never expressed the need for an attorney concreted the case. The Supreme Court defended its decision of overturning the case by arguing that, the law dictates that, the arresting officer should give suspects warning as concerns provision of eviden as provided in the fifth and sixth amendment. Although the court overturned the case because of the nullification of the evidence, later on, since he the court tried him using the real witnesses’ evidence whereby the court found him guilty hence, convicted him of the two offenses, sentencing him to 20 and 30 years behind bars (U.S. Supreme Court p.1).

Issue

Should provisions in the fifth and sixth amendment as concernconcerndual rights during arrest allow the court to use the evidence collected using wrong procedures?

Holding

The constitution clearly directs on the naturthe e of criminal procedure that all law enforcing agents must follow when collecting evidence from suspects. In addition, the Fifth Amendment and in the sixth amendments provisions as concerns individuals’ rights of seeking help from attorneys clearly illustrates scenarios when the court can use evidence collected from suspects for conviction purposes. Referring to judgments made on a previous case of the same nature: Escobedo v. Illinois, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling hence, disbanding the confession evidence.

Rationale

Provisions of the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause and the sixth amendment clearly define procedures, which police must use in collecting evidence from suspects. This includes informing suspects of their rights to remain silent, owing to the fact that anything they utter is applicable as evidence during conviction and sentencing. Hence, the officers must give suspects an option of seeking services of lawyers during interrogation. Hence, in this case the officers violated these provisions leading to invalidation of using the evidence collected during arrest and interrogation.

Concurring Opinions

Justice Clark presented a partial concurrent opinion by stating that, the lower courts went overboard however, depending on what transpires before collection of evidences from suspects then the state has the duty of establishing whether suspects gave evidences voluntarily of involuntarily.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Harlan argued that, the court application of such provisions in the constitutions in some way was affecting the quality of case outcomes because every time the courts were adding new provisions to the constitution, something that may invalidate its importance. On the other hand, Justice ruled against the courts decision by stating that, the inclusion of new provisions as concerns individual rights in the constitution; void of a strong basis, was jeopardizing the quality of justice.

References

U.S. Supreme Court. Miranda v. Arizona: Certiorari to the supreme court of Arizona. 2010. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!