Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The Court also stated that if an individual indicates at any time that he wants to remain silent, the interrogation must stop; any statement taken after this time is the product of compulsion. Silence can never constitute a valid waiver.
Dissent: Justice Clark's dissented in three of the decisions, but concurred in one. He found that police coercion was not sufficiently established to justify the extent of the majority's decision. Clark would continue to evaluate Fifth Amendment waivers under a totality of the circumstances approach.
Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White dissented. They found that the majority's required warnings would not prevent coercion, because officers could still lie about waivers, but to seek a Utopian "voluntariness" for confessions, which is impractical in the real world. They believed that the Court had already established an "elaborate, sophisticated, and sensitive approach to admissibility of confessions." (384 U.S. 436, 509). They believed that the Fifth Amendment was not a guarantee against pressure during interrogation.
Comment: At this time, the Miranda warnings are so widely known, that the reasons that the Court used to justify its decision may no longer be valid. Anyone who watches television or movies, has been exposed to the Miranda...
However, at the time of this decision, there were no Miranda warnings and people may have been ignorant of these rights. Furthermore, even with widespread awareness of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, the fact remains that there are some people who are not aware of those rights. In fact, those individuals are in the class that is probably the most vulnerable to coercion. Therefore, to make those rights meaningful, it makes sense to require that defendants be informed of those rights. Furthermore, the dissent's concerns that giving such a warning will hamper police interrogation techniques, however the warning is short, sweet, and easily given to defendants. It also prevents litigation over voluntariness, because the decision creates a bright-line rule.
Principle: In order to protect a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights during custodial police interrogations, defendant's must be informed of the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney; the right to an appointed attorney if they cannot afford counsel; and the fact that all statements made by them can and will be used against them in a court of law. Any statement made by a defendant who hasn't received "Miranda" warnings is…
Case Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and locked up in a Phoenix police station on March 13, 1963 where he was identified by a complaining witness (Samaha, 2012). �Law enforcement officers took him to an Investigation Room where he was questioned before the two officers came out with a written confession that he signed.� During the questioning, Miranda was not notified that he had a right to an attorney and
Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966) This case was first brought in district court against Ernest Miranda after a rape investigation led authorities to question him. Under questioning, Miranda admitted to raping a young girl and signed a written confession. The case was heard in Phoenix district court and Miranda was adjudicated as guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Miranda's appeal, finding him guilty once again. The U.S. Supreme Court
Is the EEOC's understanding of its rule entitled to respect under Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007) -- a case decided twelve days after the Eighth Circuit delivered its decision in this case? Martel v. Clair - Docket No., 10-1265 In this case after ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent abruptly complained about and sought substitution of his
Criminal Justice & Criminology Has the Miranda vs. Arizona ruling decreased the percentage of arresting official violations of defendant Fifth Amendment rights? (Rian) CJ327W Research Methods in Criminal Justice The Miranda vs. Arizona ruling has attracted notable attention to the treatment of the accused in the hands of the law. Specifically, the ruling affirmed the rights to the accused under the law and to the legal rights of the accused. The research was
Product Liability and Vaccines This study examines product liability as it relates to vaccine damages. This study investigates such cases and the decisions handed down by the judicial system on the liability of the drug manufacturers in cases where individuals have been harmed by the vaccinations. There are however, statutory protections afford to developers of vaccine immunizations which serve to protect the interest of these companies and as well as special
Finally, a lot of defense lawyers assist in helping men and women go free because of a technicality. On the whole however, it is a better system after the Gideon case because less innocent people are being convicted of crimes they did not commit. In the Case of Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court ruled that a defendant's admission was only admissible provided he had been properly