Term Paper on "Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief Case Name"

Term Paper 6 pages (1924 words) Sources: 2 Style: APA

[EXCERPT] . . . .

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 affirmed the trial court's conviction of defendant, even though the defendant was not warned of his Fifth Amendment rights after being taken into custody and prior to making inculpatory statements to the police. Miranda was heard with three other cases: Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. Vignera sought review of the decision of the Court of Appeals of New York, which affirmed his conviction. Westover sought review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed his conviction. California sought review of the decision of the Supreme Court of California, which reversed Stewart's conviction.

Facts: In Miranda v. Arizona, the police arrested defendant, interrogated him in a special room, and secured a confession. In Vignera v. New York, police interrogated defendant, who made oral admissions to him. Defendant Vignera was later questioned by an assistant district attorney and signed an inculpatory statement after that questioning. In Westover v. United States, local authorities detained and interrogated defendant for a lengthy period, then handed him over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which obtained signed statements from him. In California v. Stewart, defendant was held for five days and interrogated nine times by local police before providing an inculpatory statement. Each of the defendants was put into an unfamiliar atmosphere and subjected to menacing interrogation procedures. None of the records showed overt physical coercion or psychological ploys; simply a failure to make sure that the interrogations were the result of free choice. However, Miranda was an indigent defendant, who was seriously disturbed and had pronounced sexual fantasies, and Stewart was an indigent who had dropped out of school in the sixth grade.

Issues: What restraints must society observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime? What procedures are necessary to assure the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation?

Decision: The Court reversed the decisions of the Supreme Court of Arizona, the Court of Appeals of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, thereby reversing the convictions of defendants Miranda, Vignera, and Westover. The Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of California, reversing defendant Stewart's conviction. The Court held that "when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him." (384 U.S. 436, 478-9).

Opinion: The Court felt that it was important to explain the nature and setting of custodial interrogation. Factual studies and cases before the Court demonstrated that police questioning could be grueling and brutal. Though physical brutality and violence may not be the norm in police questioning, it existed as a possibility, and that possibility threatens the Fifth Amendment right to not be compelled to testify against oneself. The Court found that "Unless a proper limitation upon custodial interrogation is achieved - such as these decisions will advance - there can be no assurance that practices of this nature will be eradicated in the foreseeable future." (384 U.S. 436, 448). While most modern interrogations do not involve physical brutality, modern custodial interrogations are very can be very psychologically stressful. Interrogation generally take place in privacy, which results in secrecy, and that can lead to questions about what happens in interrogation rooms. (384 U.S. 436, 448). Interrogators are to act relentless in their questioning, and can mislead suspects about the ramifications for illegal actions in order to secure confessions. The Court found that this element of isolation was key "to be alone with the subject is essential to prevent distraction and to deprive him of any outside support. The aura of confidence in his guilt undermines his will to resist. He merely confirms the preconceived story the police seek to have him describe." (384 U.S. 436, 455). In fact, the Court determined that the defendants' statements may not "have been involuntary in traditional terms. Our concern for adequate safeguards to protect Fifth Amendment rights is, of course, not lessened in the slightest." (384 U.S. 436, 457). The Court determined that "It is obvious that such an interrogation environment is created for no purpose other than to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner. This atmosphere carries its own badge of intimidation. To be sure, this is not physical intimidation, but it is equally destructive of human dignity. The current practice of incommunicado interrogation is at odds with one of our Nation's most cherished principles - that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself. Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. (384 U.S. 436, 457-8). The Court found that the presence of counsel would meet Fifth Amendment protections, so that statements made in the presence of an attorney are voluntary and not the product of compulsion. The Court held that there was no doubt that the Fifth Amendment is applicable outside of court.

The Court determined 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. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it - the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise. More important, such a warning is an absolute prerequisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere. It is not just the subnormal or woefully ignorant who succumb to an interrogator's imprecations, whether implied or expressly stated, that the interrogation will continue until a confession is obtained or that silence in the face of accusation is itself damning and will bode ill when presented to a jury. Further, the warning will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it. The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given. Assessments of the knowledge the defendant possessed, based on information as to his age, education, intelligence, or prior contact with authorities, can never be more than speculation; warning is a clearcut fact. More important, whatever the background of the person interrogated, a warning at the time of the interrogation is indispensable to overcome its pressures and to insure that the individual knows he is free to exercise the privilege at that point in time. The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. It is only through an awareness of these consequences that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege. Moreover, this warning may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of the adversary system - that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest." (384 U.S. 436, 467-9).

Furthermore, the Court found that a defendant does not need to make a pre-interrogation request for an attorney, and that the failure to request an attorney is not the same as waiving one's right to an attorney. In addition, a defendant's right to an attorney cannot be denied because… READ MORE

How to Reference "Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief Case Name" Term Paper in a Bibliography

Related Term Papers:

Analyzing Appellate Court Case Research Paper

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.… read more

Research Paper 10 pages (3414 words) Sources: 10 Topic: Sports / Exercise / Fitness

---

Procedural Due Process the Bill of Rights Term Paper

Procedural Due Process

The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution was intended to give Americans certain guarantees of protection against threats to their liberty or property. The protection… read more

Term Paper 4 pages (1297 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Criminal Justice Is the Coordination of Putting Term Paper

Criminal Justice is the coordination of putting into practice and associations exercised by state and local governments which are aimed at sustaining social power, dissuade, controlling misdemeanor and permitting those… read more

Term Paper 7 pages (2218 words) Sources: 6 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Obtaining the Confession Term Paper

Ethics and Morality

Obtaining the Confession number of ethical issues present themselves in this particular case. First among them is whether it is right to arrest Sylvester Smoot simply because… read more

Term Paper 7 pages (1945 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Law and Evidence Essay

Federal Rules of Evidence

The issue here is whether the suspension of the license should be overturned because the police report was inadmissible. The second issue is whether the finding… read more

Essay 8 pages (2542 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>