Research Paper on "Analyzing Appellate Court Case"

Research Paper 10 pages (3414 words) Sources: 10

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Including the right of having a lawyer under the Miranda case's warnings was merely to add to the Amendment V provision of disallowing coercion of individuals into witnessing against themselves.

The frequency of emergence of Miranda problem cases in both state and federal appeals court reports prompted "Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Incorporated" researchers to have a survey created and administered, with the aim of assessing the quantity of effort and time being devoted by numerous appeal courts to decide Miranda issue suits (Inbau and Manak, 1987). Ascertaining whether or not Miranda was worth the efforts, time and other resources dedicated to it, especially considering that the mandate by the Supreme Court was a mere prophylactic rule to reduce the frequency of breach of the protection against self-incrimination and not a fundamental rule for safeguarding against risks of using false confessions as court evidence was the key rationale behind the survey. Regardless of whether Miranda-issue Supreme Court lawsuits are deemed to be fairly "few" or fairly "many," the blatant truth remains that 47 Miranda suits, aside from the original one, have been settled by the Court.

The Court held that suspect's rights against self-implication have, since long, remained a part of the English-American law and serve to balance the vulnerability linked to detention. This position, if left unchecked, is usually capable of resulting in governmental abuse. For instance, the Supreme Court referred to the incessant high frequency of police-led violence aimed at forcing a suspect to confess. According to the Court, this as well as other types of intimidation violate the fundamental rights of the accused and may result in false confession of guilt (McBride). Suspects' right to have a lawyer working on his/her behalf is just as important a right, as a lawyer's presence during interrogation, in Chief Justice Warren's view, it helps suspects under otherwise forceful circumstances to relate their tale effectively and fearlessly, as well as in a manner that eliminates evils linked to law enforcement interrogations. In the absence of the aforementioned basic privileges, both capable of dispelling the coercion intrinsic to the custodial environment (according to the Court), no declaration by the accused may be considered a true outcome of his/her free choice. Therefore, for safeguarding those rights despite widespread unawareness of them, the Supreme Court formulated statements necessary to be told by the police to detainees prior to commencing interrogation. These obligatory "Miranda Rights" start with a right to silence and go on to include the fact that whatever is spoken by the suspect may be employed as evidence against him/her at trial (Mcbride). Moreover, law enforcement officials are obliged to let detainees know of their right to have a lawyer (or be provided one, if they are unable to afford a private attorney), who can be present during interrogations. As Miranda was not granted any of the above rights and his supposed declaration of guilt was consequently admitted, unconstitutionally, at court, the court reversed his sentence. The defendant was subsequently retried, and sentenced without guilt admission. In establishing the "Miranda" warnings that citizens fail to adequately appreciate today, the Miranda v. Arizona case brought the state's increasing regulatory powers in line with citizens' fundamental rights. Miranda continues to be a good law to this day.

Public Policy Issues

Those who opposed the Miranda ruling claim that the case epitomizes judicial activism that hinders law enforcement efforts to curb crime. Meanwhile, advocates respond by stating that hardly any restrictions are imposed on the police through this warning, and those that are imposed are, in fact, mandated by the Constitution. Supporters of both arguments now assert that statistical proof exists of their individual stands, but a close study of a statistical analysis demonstrates why it is rare for numbers to settle philosophical disagreements (Beatty, 1999). Professors Stephen Schulhofer and Paul Cassell took part in a Harvard University Student Federalist Society-sponsored 1996 symposium. The latter claimed that a comparison of law enforcement case clearance or detention rates prior, and subsequent, to the Miranda case was proof that the verdict had negative implications for law enforcement. On the other hand, the former stated that those very rates were proof that no major impact occurred. Both display substantial expertise in the field of statistical data analysis and question the others' approach. Both err in their assumption that any repercussion of the ruling, whether positive or negative, will surface at the criminal justice system's detention stage.

Miranda's effects, if any, on law enforcers, will not be apparent in the clearance or detention rates. The ruling impacts confession admissibility at court trials, rather than confession employment for clearing cases by arrest. Expecting either of the two professors' theories to be corroborated by statistics, necessitates the following assumptions (Beatty, 1999):

1. Law enforcement officials never apprehend any individual on grounds of any confession suppressed subsequently due to violation of Miranda rights and,

1. Confessions are invariably employed as court evidence, unless they are held back on account of violation of Miranda rights. Also, suppression hinders prosecution, thereby leading law enforcement officials to change their conduct in future.

For attaining the outcome declared on the bases that it does, the 5th Amendment that prohibits forced self-implication must be adhered to. Therefore, the crux of the Supreme Court's judgment is owing to the coercion intrinsic to the custodial environment, no declaration by the accused may be considered a true outcome of his/her free choice. But the Court doesn't identify any unexpected surfacing of fresh knowledge that necessitates a dismissal of seven decades of judicial experience (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA -- FindLaw). Further, it also doesn't claim that a new conclusion indicates a shift in state court consensus or a series of suits had gradually worn the old law away and rendered it unworkable. Instead of claiming emergence of fresh knowledge, the Supreme Court admits it can't really know what happens in the course of during custodial cross-questioning, owing to its innate secrecy. This doesn't imply that regard for the inviolable nature of the suspect's individual personality mustn't be given any emphasis or that every confession ought to be admitted by a court indiscriminately (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA -- FindLaw). The Court has, for long, examined the Constitution for proscribing compelled declarations of guilt, a salutary law from which no retreat ought to occur. However, I cannot perceive any strong scientific or non-scientific basis, and the Supreme Court provides none, to conclude that the current rule against accepting forced confessions is ineffective for identifying unacceptable evidence and that the now-enforced per se law ought to replace it. Even were the novel idea to possess any sort of advantage over the existing rule, they are outweighed considerably by its potential adverse effect on other highly important and pertinent areas.

Conclusion

According to J. Clark or Justice Tom Clark, Amendment V and XIV's clauses on due process are applicable to suspect interrogations. No sufficient evidence exists to prove a need for applying a new law as found by the majority here. J. Harlan or Justice John Harlan also contends that the aforementioned clauses ought to apply. He further maintains that Amendment V's protection against self-implication never meant to prevent force against self-implication (Miranda v. Arizona -- Casebriefs - Part 2). Lastly, J. White (Justice Byron White) claimed that no historical foundation exists for expanding Amendment V and covering the rights extended by the majority decision. New law is being made with this decision.

When all is said and done, no part of the Constitution's spirit or letter or precedents is consistent with the Court's forceful, precipitous, and unfair action for the sake of accomplishing its constitutional duties. The suggestion that the right against self-implication prohibits custodial questioning without stating the warnings cured by the majority's opinion as well as without clearly relinquishing counsel does not have any appreciable backing in the right's history or in Amendment V jargon. With regard to English law history and authority, the privilege, rooted firmly in the 17th century's latter half, was applied only in forbidding forced interrogations by the judiciary (Miranda v. Arizona a?" The Patriot Post). The law that excluded forced admissions of guilt matured roughly a century later. However, no aspect of the reports indicates that the idea springs from the right against self-implication. Also, in as much as the suits indicate, the right by itself appears to be given importance only at court, including preliminary investigations by authorized officials.

A constitutional provision claims that no individuals involved in criminal lawsuits are to be coerced into witnessing against themselves. This, when regarded from a literal perspective, apparently signifies that no individual shall be forced to testify orally against him/herself at a trail wherein he/she is the accused. Very little exists in the related circumstances of adopting Amendment V, or in state constitutional provisions of the time, or even in state… READ MORE

How to Reference "Analyzing Appellate Court Case" Research Paper in a Bibliography

Related Research Papers:

Appellate Opinion Breach of Contract Research Paper

Appellate Opinion

In the case of Union Pacific Railroad Company v. The United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the defendant after determining that… read more

Research Paper 12 pages (3783 words) Sources: 9 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Laws of Corrections Case Study

Laws of Corrections

When someone is detained, there is the assumption that prisoners are not entitled to Fourth Amendment protections (i.e. unreasonable searches and seizures). Evidence of this can be… read more

Case Study 5 pages (1503 words) Sources: 1 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Auditing Roman Holiday Case Study

Roman Holiday. For part one, do not only explain the general auditing concept and rules but also use the methodology to analyze the CASE FACT.

For part 2, please use… read more

Case Study 20 pages (9639 words) Sources: 5 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Corporate Taxation Cases to Draw Similarities Term Paper

corporate taxation cases to draw similarities and differences and analyze the resulting rules of law. First, Seggerman Farms will be closely examined for its impact, and then, reversing the process… read more

Term Paper 10 pages (2538 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Economics / Finance / Banking

---

Ethics in Decision-Making Essay

U.S. v. Billy Bob

This essay discusses the issues raised in the case of U.S. v. Billy Bob and a proposed decision in the case. First, the essay discusses the… read more

Essay 3 pages (1162 words) Sources: 4 Style: APA Topic: Drugs / Alcohol / Tobacco

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>