7-2 Miranda v. Arizona Legal Case analysis Final essay PDF

Preview

Summary

7-2 Miranda v. Arizona Legal Case analysis Final essay...

Description

Running head: MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

1

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA Sukhreet Kaur Southern New Hampshire University POL 328 April-18-2021

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

2

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Introduction Case Facts On 13th March 1963, a destitute 23 years old man who hardly accomplished his ninthgrade named Ernesto Miranda was under arrest from his household and taken directly to the in Phoenix police station, Arizona. He was then taken directly for interrogation and questioned the crimes after a kidnapping victim and rape identified him. Miranda, at first, was able to maintain innocence, but after two hours of questioning, the police in charge of the case came into the questioning room with a duly signed declaration of guilt letter. During his trial, the written concession was used as evidence that he [Miranda] was found guilty of kidnapping and raping an 18 year old girl. Although Miranda, during the interrogation, was not told by the police that anything he could say would be used against him under the court of law, the police admitted that the consent was to prove fatal to the prosecution. It is also evident that Miranda was neither before nor during the interrogation informed or advised to have an attorney who would counsel him when to answer questions and what not to answer. The confession from Miranda thus would have only been admissible through the voluntariness test. The mode of questioning was extraordinary, which can be termed as mild compared to the usual police method of interrogations. As a result, an involuntary confession was arrived at, which is more coerced than from the previous cases from the same department. Miranda's confession was a promulgate case only designed to suit this case as the new constitutional standards were not followed during this case. The recent constitution laws/ 5th amendment gives an individual a self-incrimination

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

3

advantage/ privilege. That means no individual is supposed to or be compelled to be their own witnesses or against themselves. Miranda's interrogation was not followed either by the custody police or in the room interrogations conducted. Historical Importance The case has been referred to after several years since it is of much significance to our legal society. One of the reasons for this case is that the accused's privilege was deemed only applicable in the U.S. in 1964, although it was passed in 1960. Thus by the time it gave, a large body of the law that pertains the coerced and involuntary national confessions had already developed. Also, it is essential to note that the pre-Miranda case era was understood that it meant legal compulsions to compel someone to testify against themselves. Threatening of suspects was done. Thus, neither the contempt of refusing to testify nor the perjury of false-fully testifying would run the argument the accused or the person being interrogated was forced to be their own witness. Thus, even though the people under such circumstances are likely to be led by the law enforcers to believe no legal sanctions or extra-legal sanctions could be used if they fail or refuse to cooperate. More so, there were no legal obligations to the police to make unlawful authority that would make a suspect answer their questions (“Miranda v. Arizona - Case Brief for Law Students | Case briefs,” 2020). Thus, no privilege could apply in a technical sense. The above reasoning was strained, although it prevailed for a long time since there was a widely held view that suspect questioning without advising them of the rights and benefits of his rights would be indispensable to the law enforcement job. Moreover, police invisibility to interrogation made it easy for complacency of society about what takes part in the interrogation room versus what used to occur in the same room

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

4

previously. It was deemed that self-incrimination would apply to the police station for the first time for this case. For instance, in Malloy vs. Hogan (1964), the court held complete application of self-incrimination privilege since the confessions were not involved. The court also said that the privileges of the 5th amendment will always control the proclamation and admissibility of admission in a federal court or a state. Thus, the confession privileges and rules may be intertwined in Malloy and then fused together in Miranda's case to be used later in the future. Legal issues After discussion of the Miranda vs. Arizona case, the Supreme Court left the confessions law in uncertainties. Before, the decision was virtual and narrowly limited to the case facts while there was a broad potential for expansion. The 5th amendment, through its deep concerns and determinations, to predict the ultimate interpretations of the Supreme Court, organized bars to delimit the boundaries of this case decision (“Miranda v. Arizona - Case Brief for Law Students | Case briefs,” 2020). The questions considered in this case include; when can a suspect who desires to see or have an attorney have them? Can a suspect who lacks funds have an attorney during or before the interrogations, and how can they get the attorney? Had the interrogators warned the suspect of his rights of having legal counsel before interrogations? In this case, some questions solely related to having a right to an attorney or counsel. The suspect [Miranda] had the right to have an attorney during or before the interrogations. The focal point to the problem of this case was the suspect's right to having an attorney. That is because the court believes it's solely responsible for a suspect to have an attorney in the offset of any interrogations, especially in police dominated atmosphere. Eventually, several more case issues related to Miranda's type reached the Supreme Court later, and the means which the

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

5

court used to solve Miranda's case was still used merging with the other three issues. The 5th amendment and the confession laws were the key frames in the determination of different cases. In this case, Miranda rights were waived and invoked. “(Every suspect has a right to remain silent, or anything or word uttered be used against them in a court of law.)” However, the right was not invoked, and staying quiet could not necessarily mean that the interrogations will cease to be done (“Miranda v. Arizona - Case Brief for Law Students | Case briefs,” 2020). Therefore, the police continued with the interrogations and repeatedly asked Miranda questions even if he remained quiet. As a result, they came up with their untrue assessment/ confession, which they used as evidence. Similarly, the rights can be waived if the suspect ought to give voluntary statements. In this case, Miranda neither gave voluntary comments that would have waived his rights nor did he utter a word that could be used as a confession. The scope of this case [Miranda vs. Arizona] is beyond the discussion in terms of the individual case. However, it is important to show that most of the substantial variations attempted to define the solutions to the Miranda issues. An identical relief requested was given to the convictions reversal or the reversal of the affirmance, raising the defendants' legal arguments. That varied from the reliance limitation due to the voluntariness process of the doctrine that claims that the constitution requires suspects to be offered automatic counsel assignment before interrogations are made to make the yield and evidence admissible (Schrock, Welsh & Collins, 1978). The 5th amendment is made the principle reference against self-incrimination since it argues the need to have a realistic forum to exercise the privilege given by the constitution. Justice Warren reports that the primary constitutional issue that they considered in deciding on the case is the admissibility of the statements from the question the defendant was

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

6

subjected to when in the custody that he was dispossessed of the freedom of his actions in a trivial way. The police officers prosecuting attorneys or the detectives questioned the defendant in a room, cutting him off from the outside world. In this case, there are salient features; incommunicado separate interrogation in this case by the police resulted in self-incrimination without being warned of the constitutional rights. Again, the court stressed the modern incustody practice of psychologically oriented interrogations rather than the physical-oriented practice (Schrock, Welsh & Collins, 1978). The court has also recognized that it will be physically and mentally coercive to consider psychological interrogations, and the accused/suspect's blood is not a hallmark of the unconstitutional inquisition. The interrogations also are said to have been done in privacy, thus violating the truth of the process and hence creates a knowledge gap to the interrogation facts coming from the interrogation rooms. Case Pathway In this case, Miranda is the defendant/ petitioner, while in Arizona, the 18-year-old girl is the respondent or the Plaintiff. The case proceedings were in Phoenix, Arizona, with the main judgments given by Warren Court, where it was debated on February 28th, 1966 and later ruling given on June 13th, 1966. After documentation, the case was given docket number 759, citations number 384 US 436 (1966). The advocated presents from the petitioners' side included John J. Flynn, Victor M Earle, III, F. Conger Fawcett, and Gordon Ringer. On the plaintiff's side, the attorneys involved were Gary K Nelson, William I. Siegel, and William A. Norris. Other legal counsel involved included Thurgood Marshall [United States Solicitor General], Duane R Nedrud [national districts attorney] Telford Taylor [representing New York State as an amicus curiae for all special circumstances by the leave of the court]. By order of seniority, there were

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

7

nine judges involved in the case, with five votes against four to affirm the decision that it was right and constitutional for the suspect to be warned of his rights to remain silent and all the words they may utter will be used in court (Miranda v. Arizona., 1966). These judges include; Justice Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Fortas. Prior to the decision of this situation, the confession admissibility in this criminal cause was governed under the process of circumstances and voluntariness test. The following approach helped the courts decide whether the confessed people will have been overborne or either broken on some voluntary convictions. However, there lacked transparency in the hand lance of the case. After evaluation, it was founded that a mere conclusion is what has been made the totality of the suspects' treatment was not good and thus referred to as confession voluntarism. For instance, the police gave the suspect some sandwich despite using a lot of trickery and pressure as well as permitting him to have a normal sleep than others (“Find Law’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions.,” 2016). On the other hand, the court can be labeled as coercive behavior that irregular vagueness and unpredictable activities. That lowered the ability of the suspect to validate the confessions made constitutional with the Supreme Courts' inability to reduce the workload. Therefore, the police officers did not do Justice to arrest the suspect and interrogation him without the consent of the leader of the operation. Miranda was so much culminated by the scale and truth of the matter. Criticisms Miranda is highly criticized from the angle that it was balanced ruled in favor of criminal defendants in legal aspects. However, the Supreme Court noted that a case in 1986, Moran vs. Burbine, shows that the decision embodied a crafted balance that was carefully designed to

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

8

protect the society's interest and the defendant. The amendments have done after the Miranda case required no one is taken to custody to speak or consult a lawyer for their constitutional waiver to apply. The weakness that prevails from the decision made is that inherent pressure is permitted to somebody in police custody so that their constitutional rights can be waived without any need to obtain counsel guidance. In theory, the waiver must be voluntary and knowing to every individual that may it is subjected to; however that depends on an individual's viewpoint. Miranda, in this case, had allowed the police to carry on with investigations without providing the warning that he had some rights that would be beneficial to him in arguing the point. From this perspective, the policemen would have the courage to interview and interrogate suspects in their offices or homes suspects without advising them on their rights. The interrogations would take place in contexts that would restrict the person's freedom of meeting termination. It is also evident that Miranda leaves the police with the ability and freedom to act upon and hear the volunteered statements. However, the volunteer taken to the custody does not know and is not informed of their rights when being interrogated. Miranda warnings can not only be enforced by custody (“Find Law’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions.” 2016). Thus it is the suspects' impact on interplay that the police custody and interrogations that make police interrogation custody corrosive as well as calling for proactive devices for other cases in the future, such as Illinois vs. Perking (1990). Similarly, even when the waiver and notices for the civil rights were prerequisite, Miranda permitted the police to get hold of waivers and give warnings with the absence of a disinterested observer/party or an attorney or a tape recording for the interrogation proceedings. A tape recording could be important because it would justify that no rule was overridden.

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

9

Over a quarter a century since the Miranda case was decided, incrimination still continues to happen at greater heights and frequencies. That does not matter whether the conscience promotion, desire for overriding the warning impacts, or if the police were slur undermining any warnings. However, the case would be different if police warnings were rape recorded; thus, the suspect's response would be feasible. However, there is a doubt that it would be another case if Miranda had required the interrogators to give him an attorney may be the changes that were later made would not have been made. It is important to evaluate all the concepts and what would happen if a specific phenomenon is undermined. Besides the least of the many forms of Miranda's criticism, the broadside attack on the entire holdings decision could be one of the most ideal. The dissent of Justice Harlan best expresses the views that give the correct expansion of police interrogations with a counsel as both unfounded to be necessary and precedent. The Justice also analyzed the issue in the coercion and the possibilities to eliminate and create al what he viewed as an inherent decisionmaker to how the court's precedents can be seen (“Find Law’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions.,” 2016). A keen degree for an insight also would determine why the waiver to Miranda was never acceptable. However, since the inherent coercion views were spontaneous, when the custodian setting is considered not accompanied by the waiver, it would be permissible. Conclusion With a vote of five against four, this issue raises many complaints and positive influences on society at large. Chief Justice Warren believes that in order to uphold the integrity of the constitution since it is the common law supposed to be used in the country, in custody, the privilege of the suspects must always be upheld. Therefore, a defendant or the suspect is

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

10

supposed to be warned of their rights before interrogating and interrogating. By so doing, the defendant is given a chance to consult an attorney on the legal procedures and measures that may be taken against them if they do not give the true information about their situation. I feel this is the best way to go about interrogations because different people have different personality traits and moods; besides having any evidence that your prospect the suspect may be guilty, badmouthing would land them into more trouble Miranda v. Arizona. (1966). Similarly, a suspect may be innocent and lacks a criminal record bit due to fear and emotions may utter words that would sue them through contradiction. An attorney is anyone that represents a certain party, either the defendant or the Plaintiff, and gives them legal counsel on what to do and not to do in case any question is asked. From Justice White, the 5th amendment only protects the suspects or the defendants from self-incriminating themselves Miranda v. Arizona. (1966). White argues that such cases could harm the criminal process, thus destroying the credibility of the confessions. In this case, Justice White may be right from his argument on an ideological point of view, but his decision compromises with the constitution. Similarly, he does not take into consideration that being a suspect does not necessarily mean that you are guilty. It is wise for any suspect to have an attorney because everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty despite conducting the crime. After the 5th amendments, the case is still relevant for referencing to date because no one can be interrogated in the United States regardless of the crime committed without being warned of your rights. Moreover, it gives people who lack legal knowledge a platform to express themselves after being counseled appropriately.

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

11

References Miranda v. Arizona - Case Brief for Law Students | Case briefs. (2020). Retrieved from Casebriefs.com website: https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminalprocedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-andconfessions/miranda-v-arizona-2/ Find Law’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions. (2016). Retrieved from Find law website: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/384/436.html Miranda v. Arizona. (1966). Oyez. Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 Schrock, T. S., Welsh, R. C., & Collins, R. (1978). Interrogational Rights: Reflections on Miranda v. Arizona. S. Cal. L. Rev., 52, 1....