Legal Aspects of Evidence of Miranda v Arizona
Basically, in this discussion essay, focus will be directed to the case, Miranda v. Arizona where the Supreme Court had to rule on Miranda’s favor, (Leo 630). This was done since he had not been issued or rather informed of his rights during the arrest. In this essay, topic discussion will be about the legal aspects of Miranda v. Arizona, as one of the historical cases that had impact to the judiciary and the police force. The Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1966. This is a case that was introduced to the court in 1963 following an arrest that was made in the same year in Phoenix. The 5-4 decision that was written by the Supreme Court’s judge, The Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that the fact that the prosecution could not introduce or mention the criminal’s rights before the interrogation, it was wrong, (Leo 673).
The ruling went ahead to state that the mandate of the police introduce any criminal to his or her rights to an attorney. The police failed at doing so and yet it is required of them to introduce the criminal to their arrest before interrogation. The decision attracts different opinions from the audience and one of them is that the supporters of the opponents tries to challenge the decision by arguing that the constitutional mandate has been restricted by law that was negligibly enforced or enacted by the judiciary system, (Leo 630). The impact is seen as from the entire system of judiciary is held responsible for the decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This is the reason why the court had to arrive on its decision citing that Miranda was denied his rights to access an attorney and that the information that he may have confessed might be altered since he was suffering from mental illness Impact of the Case to the Evidence Examination, Use or Introduction 30 years since the case was ruled in the United States of America’s Supreme Court but still the debates are still going on to date.
The purpose of the decision was to try and curtail the misconduct that the police were subjected to when conducting any or securing confession to any criminal suspect that was to be arraigned to court. The ruling acted as a lesson to the police and the general public at large. Expanding Civil Rights. Landmark Cases. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | PBS"). The impact is seen as from the entire system of judiciary is held responsible for the decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The duty for the police to perform so, is compelled by the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which give the criminal the opportunity of them rejecting or rather denying to be witness against themselves. The Sixth Amendment grants the criminal defendant a chance to access the attorney in any criminal cases to be heard in the court.
Primarily, in any legal field, the police force will have to use or even employ the use of confession in order to clear some of the cases. When looking deep or rather scrutinizing the effect as well as the impact of the Miranda v. Arizona decision from the Supreme Court, it is therefore, important to obverse one of the two assumptions that has been identified. This was thought be a best practice amongst the police force especially before arresting or interrogating any criminal suspect. The presence of an attorney during an interrogation enables the defendant to tell a story with confidence. The right to an attorney is a fundamental right and denying a criminal suspect such right deems the transparency of the case thus violating the Miranda.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop