2020 Abel Láriz US Government
Research Assignment: Miranda v Arizona Case
1. What did Miranda v Arizona ultimately decide and how did it impact
police questioning?
In Miranda v Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal
suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional
right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Miranda was convicted of
both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years of prison.
The Miranda warnings were created to protect individual’s rights and
prevent the police from violating those rights. The police need to state the
Miranda warnings to individuals in custody who may give incriminating
statements in response to police interrogation, to assure that those
statements will be admissible in court.
2. Should the defendant have received Miranda warnings before the
police interrogation began? Why or why not?
Situation 1:
In this case, I think Charles should have received his Miranda rights as he
had. The fact that the police considered his as the assailant just because he
kind of fitted the description make’s it absolutely necessary to read him
these rights.
Situation 2:
In this other case, I don’t think the defendant should receive his Miranda
rights. Although he told the truth about having consumed alcohol and drugs
after getting negative in the sobriety test when he could have left,
consuming this type of things is very risky not just to him, but everyone on
the road.
Sources:
Buzz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXjUcI2kcc&feature=youtu.be
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/miranda-rights
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html