Term Paper on "Legal Issues in Miranda v. Arizona, 384"
Term Paper 5 pages (1799 words) Sources: 4
[EXCERPT] . . . .
Legal Issues in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)The issues and their importance
Justice Warren summarized the issues in the case in the opening paragraph of his opinon, saying that the opinion would decide questions about
"the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself." (Miranda, p. 439).
These issues are important because they will affect the way that police interrogate criminal suspects in custody and the way that courts enforce the criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment rights when the suspect is in police custody. The way in which these two questions are determined will affect the ability of state and federal governments to investigate and prosecute crimes and they will affect how the courts will protect individuals and their constitutional right against self-incrimination.
b.
Key legal precedent
The Court reconsidered, reaffirmed and extended the ruling that it made in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), where it ruled that the evidence at a criminal trial could not include a confession obtained from a suspect who was denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights while in police custody. The opinion in Escobedo created a rule that suspects could not be coerced while in police custody.
c.
Summary of Court's opinion
When the police have a cri
download full paper ⤓
Facts of the Case
Ernesto Miranda, the petitioner in the Supreme Court and the defendant in the trial court, was arrested at his home and taken to the police station in custody. (Miranda, p. 491). At the station, he was identified by the complaining witness. (p. 491). After the identification, police officers took him into an interrogation room. The police officers admitted at Miranda's trial that, during the interrogation, he was not advised of his right to have legal counsel present. (p. 491). After two hours of interrogation, Miranda signed a confession. (p. 492). The confession began with a statement that Miranda was making the confession with full knowledge of his constitutional rights. (p. 492).
At his trial, the prosecution sought to introduce the written confession as evidence of Miranda's guilt, along with testimony from a police officer about the oral confession that Miranda made before his written one. Miranda's attorney objected to this evidence, arguing that it had been obtained in violation of Miranda's constitutional rights. The objection was denied, and Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. (p. 492). He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of imprisonment, each of 20 to 30 years. (p. 492). On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, ruling that his constitutional rights were not violated by the police's interrogation procedure. (p. 492). Miranda then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Applicable Legal Rules
The majority pointed out that the right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right, long recognized in Anglo-American jurisprudence, even before the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution. (p. 460). This right is grounded in the principle that, to preserve democracy, individuals must have the liberty to enjoy a "private enclave," even a psychological one, into which the government may not intrude. When this principle is applied, "the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth." (p. 460). This principle is at the foundation of the right against self-incrimination. This principle prohibiting any compulsion to confess protects individuals even when they are in police custody. Citing Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542 (1897), the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment right against coerced confessions protects individuals whenever they are compelled by government to make a confession against their will, regardless of whether they are in police custody or on the witness stand in a criminal trial. (p. 460).
A confession is presumed to be compelled when the police do not take steps to provide safeguards for the individual's right against self-incrimination. The majority explained that this was the fundamental rule informing the decision in Escobedo. (pp. 465-66). There, the police created a coercive atmosphere by refusing the suspect's requests during his interrogation for the assistance of counsel. (pp. 465-66). By preventing the suspect from having the assistance of a lawyer, the police inhibited him from understanding his rights and, therefore, from making a truly voluntary confession. (p. 466). The majority concluded that this essential rule set forth in Escobedo required that police must establish procedures to assure that every suspect in custodial interrogation should understand his or her right to counsel and right against self-incrimination. (466).
In dissent, Justice Clark disagreed with the Court's conclusion that the privilege applied to custodial interrogations. He found no support for the idea that the Constitution was intended to stretch so far. He rejected the idea that the framers intended to regulate police interrogations when they enacted the Fifth Amendment or that previous decisions by the Court had ever recognized such an expansive scope for the privilege. (p. 502). Justice Harlan's dissent went even further, asserting that the Court's precedent actually recognized that there was a substantial social interest in having the police conduct effective interrogations as part of their investigation of crimes. (pp. 508-09). Harlan thought that the Fifth Amendment should not be read to protect individuals against all pressure to confess their crimes. (p. 512). As long as the police exert pressure within the confines of the principles governing due process of law, there is no violation of individual constitutional rights. (p. 512).
Application of Rules to Facts
The majority was concerned about controlling police practices by which confessions were coerced from criminal suspects. It noted that, in contemporary circumstances, confessions were coerced through primarily psychological means rather than physical ones. (pp. 448-49). The psychological tools that police employ include: isolating the suspect and placing him in unfamiliar surroundings; treating the suspect as though his guilt were already established and that the police only need him to confirm a few minor facts about the circumstances of his crime; and to emphasize to the suspect that the crime of which he is "guilty" is not really morally serious and can be blamed on others or on society. (pp. 449-50). "These tactics are designed to put the subject in a psychological state where his story is but an elaboration of what the police purport to know already -- that he is guilty. Explanations to the contrary are dismissed and discouraged." (p. 450). This approach to interrogation "exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on the weakness of individuals." (p. 455).
The Court concluded that Miranda was coerced in this way when he was in police custody.
"From the testimony of the officers and by the admission of respondent, it is clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner." (p. 492).
Thus, the Court concluded that Miranda had been subject to the kind of coercion that is inherent in any custodial interrogation and that this coercion made his confession inadmissible at his trial. (p. 492).
Court's Conclusion
The Court concluded that "if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent." (pp. 467-68). It ruled that these warnings "an absolute prerequisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere." (p. 468). The warnings were necessary because they "will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it." (p. 468)
The Court also ruled that a warning about the right to counsel is also essential to the right against self-incrimination. (p. 471). Individuals cannot always understand how to protect themselves against self-incrimination in the custodial context unless they are assisted by a lawyer during interrogation. (p. 471). As the Court put it, "an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the… READ MORE
Quoted Instructions for "Legal Issues in Miranda v. Arizona, 384" Assignment:
BUS 332 Spring 2010
Semester Writing Assignment
Purpose: The purposes of this assignment include: 1) prompt you to dig deeper into a
legal issue that interests you by reading legal documents and judicial opinions; 2) present
basic legal reasoning and argument; 3) gain experience with drafting and re-drafting
written work and summarizing complex issues (the most important purpose).
Grading: The paper constitutes 14% of your grade or 100 points. The paper will be
graded based on three areas 1) quality of the reasoning (60%) 2) quality of the writing
(including grammar and format) (25%); and 3) other (15%). The page length suggestions
below are to be adhered to if at all possible. You should gain experience in summarizing
complex issues with this assignment. If you need more than eight (8) pages you are not
summarizing effectively and you need to revise your writing. This assignment should be
turned in to me no later than Thursday May 13, 2009 by 11:55 p.m. You are
responsible for making sure your paper makes it in to me on time. I suggest that you do
not wait until the last minute.
Research: You should use all the resources at your disposal. Google can be a great place
to start, but you should only cite authoritative sources (journals, legal opinions, writings
from accepted experts in the area, etc.). An afternoon of research and reading should give
you the underlying foundation and a few days of writing should be sufficient. Check
Blackboard for additional resources.
Instructions: There are two suggested approaches to this assignment. The first approach
uses an important case that addresses a key legal issue. Essentially you will be required to
write a briefing paper on the case. The second approach addresses a larger legal issue. I
have provided a draft outline for each paper below. These outlines are for illustration
purposes, your own may differ. If you have a different approach, please provide me
with an outline of your paper proposal and I will review it for sufficiency. (This should
be provided not later than April 1).
Approach 1: Choose a case that addresses a key issue. It will be easier if you find a case
that was controversial. For instance, Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2. Two of the justices
did not agree with the reasoning of the majority (make sure you read dissenting opinions,
if only to provide you with an alternative view of the case). The opinion can be a US
Supreme Court opinion, a Federal Appeals court decision, or a state Supreme Court or
Appeals court opinion. If you are addressing a lower court opinion check the status of the
case to make sure it has not been appealed to a higher court. If the case has been appealed
use the highest court that heard the case and issued a written opinion.
Writing Assignment- BUS 332 ***** Spring 2010 ***** Peterson 2
Outline of Paper under Approach 1:
I. Introduction
a. Introduce the issues and why it is important
b. Introduce the key legal precedent that was used (or if it overturned
precedent introduce the key reason why the precedent was over turned)
c. Summarize the final opinion
II. What are the key facts of the case? This section should address the facts of
the case
III. What are the rules of law that apply in this case? This section should
address the legal issue that applies in this case. For example, if the case is
about a contract dispute what legal doctrine is applied?
IV. How do the rules of law apply to the facts and circumstances of this case?
Describe how the court applied the law in this case to the facts and
circumstances described above.
V. What was the conclusion the Court reached?
VI. Provide your own analysis of the Court*****s Opinion: This section should
address 1) why the decision appears appropriate or inappropriate. For
example, if you think the precedent that the court relied on is faulty explain
why. (Use legal reasoning, try to keep your personal opinion out of this
discussion.); 2) implications of the decision (here you can do a little
speculation based on your own opinion);
VII. Conclusion
Examples: Roe v. Wade (1973) *****right to privacy; Marbury v. Madison (1803)- judicial
review; Miranda v. Arizona (1965)- right to not confess.
Approach 2: More traditional term paper approach, although shorter in length. Choose
an issue that interests you and write a paper on the issue from a legal perspective. For the
most part, I would like you to keep your personal opinion out of the final draft of this
document. You should address this issue by citing to precedent, academic studies, or
other authoritative documents.
Outline of Paper under Approach 2:
I. Introduction
a. Summarize the issue/thesis statement
b. Summarize the legal cases addressing this issue
Writing Assignment- BUS 332 ***** Spring 2010 ***** Peterson 3
How to Reference "Legal Issues in Miranda v. Arizona, 384" Term Paper in a Bibliography
“Legal Issues in Miranda v. Arizona, 384.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2010, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/legal-issues-miranda/4720. Accessed 1 Jul 2024.
Related Term Papers:
Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief Case Name Term Paper
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief
Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436
Decided: 1966
Character: Defendant Miranda sought review of the decision of the Supreme Court of Arizona, which… read more
Term Paper 6 pages (1924 words) Sources: 2 Style: APA Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence
Miranda Rights Term Paper
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
Miranda Rights
Criminal Justice Courts - Miranda Rights
Exploration of Utility of Miranda Rights in Modern Society
Opposition to Miranda Rights
Discourse of Efficacy and Controversy Related to Miranda Use… read more
Term Paper 15 pages (4566 words) Sources: 15 Style: APA Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence
Miranda v. Arizona Term Paper
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
Criminal Justice - Miranda
MODERN IMPLICATIONS of MIRANDA PRINCIPLES
Background and History of the Miranda Ruling:
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case… read more
Term Paper 6 pages (1637 words) Sources: 2 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) Thesis
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), how had Congress exercised authority over the INS, and why did the Supreme Court find this to be invalid?
Initially, the Immigration and… read more
Thesis 5 pages (1450 words) Sources: 7 Style: APA Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence
US Supreme Court Cases Howes, Warden v Term Paper
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
US Supreme Court Cases
Howes, Warden v. Fields - Docket No., 10-680
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: No person shall be… read more
Term Paper 2 pages (596 words) Sources: 2 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence
Mon, Jul 1, 2024
If you don't see the paper you need, we will write it for you!
We can write a new, 100% unique paper!