The Miranda v. Arizona case was one of the major important, yet controversial court cases argued in the Supreme Court. Miranda was accused of rape and kidnapping by the victim who never identified him in any kind of formal identification process (United States Courts, n.d). The police arrested the alleged offender and kept him in interrogation for two hours without informing him of his constitutional rights. Miranda eventually confessed, was tried in court and was convicted for 20-30 years, a ruling that was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court. The case was presented to the US Supreme Court where the ruling was overturned in a 5-4 vote (United States Courts, n.d). The judges had found that Miranda’s statement was coerced as he had not been informed of his complete rights. Miranda v. Arizona was argued on February 28 - March 2, 1966, and decided on June 13 1966. The lawyer from the petitioner’s side was John Flynn while the respondent was represented by Gary Nelson (Miranda v. Arizona, n.d).
The arguments of counsel regarding self-incrimination in the landmark cases are detailed below. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officers make it known to suspects that they are not obliged to talk and may request counsel while in police custody before undergoing interrogations. Defendants must be notified that whatever they say may be self-incrimination used against them (United States Courts, n.d). They may also waiver these rights only after they have been made to understand the options available to them before interrogation. Those of the dissenting opinion argued that the constitution protects individuals against self-incrimination only when they have been explicitly compelled through coercion and police interrogations do not qualify as explicit coercion (Miranda v. Arizona, n.d). They argued that confessions obtained should not be automatically excluded and that the majority opinion was unnecessarily strict and would undermine the credibility of confessions. The case is significant with the right to counsel and self-incrimination as it set the precedence of Miranda rights. It has made it customary for suspects arrested to be made aware of their rights to avoid self-incrimination and get legal advice on how best to approach their situation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d). Oyez. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759
United States Courts. (n.d). Facts and case summary- Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court's%20decision%20in%20Miranda%20v.&text=Miranda%20was%20found%20guilty%20of,violated%20in%20obtaining%20the%20confession .
