Posted: December 20th, 2021

Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Need a case brief done on Miranda v. Arizona Directions for case brief and textbook pages for information and citations are here.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384U.S.436 (1966)Need a case brief done on Miranda v. Arizona Directions for case brief and textbook pages for information and citations are here. 

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

ATTACHMENT PREVIEW

Download attachment

278
| CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Jfc ^
CHAPTER 8
INTERROGATIONS AND CONFESSIONS |
279
of this project which proved to be successful was to
obtain “testimony” from some person to prove that
petitioner had alcohol in his blood at the time he
was arrested. And the purpose of the project was cer-
tainly “communicative” in that the analysis of the
blood was to supply information to enable a witness
to communicate to the court and jury that petitioner
was more or less drunk. . . .
How can it reasonably be doubted that the blood
test evidence was not in all respects the actual equiv-
alent of “testimony” taken from petitioner when
the result of the test was offered as testimony, was
Questions for Discussion
1. What is the holding of the Supreme Court in Sc/imerber? Is
Justice Brennan’s decision consistent or inconsistent with
the purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination?
2. Summarize the argument of the dissenting judges.
3. How would you rule in this case?
considered by the jury as testimony, and th
verdict of guilt rests in part on that testimon l
Ur
^’
s
refined, subtle reasoning and balancing proce
here to narrow the scope of the Bill of Right ‘
U$t
^
guard against self-incrimination provides a
h
6
~
instrument for further narrowing of that r
^ ^
tional protection, as well as others, in the f
tu
~
Believing with the Framers that these constit ^
safeguards broadly construed by independent
10na
*
nals of justice provide our best hope for keen’
U
~
people free from governmental oppression i H^ °
Ur
regret the Court’s holding
‘
dee
P
1
Y
Does the extraction of DNA evidence from a suspect i
nal case violate an individual’s right against self-inm J
B
Cnmi
”
“”wimi nation?
Problems in policing.
Explain why it is important
stand the difference between testimonial and no t
Under
”
nial evidence in regard to self-incrimination QI
V
estimo
”
examples of nontestimonial evidence.
e some
MIRANDA
V.
ARIZONA
In 1966, in
Miranda
v.
Arizona,
a five-judge majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution
use statements stemming from the custodial interrogation absent procedural safeguards to protect a def
H t’
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court majority concluded that absent a th
Miranda
warning, the “inherently coercive” pressures of police interrogation had been proven to ov
h i
individuals’ capacity to exercise their right against self-incrimination, and no confession given under th
ditions “can truly be the product of a suspect’s free choice.”
What were these coercive pressures? According to the Court, individuals held in detention were ”
lt d
from friends, family, and lawyers in unfamiliar surroundings and were subject to sophisticated psych l ‘
tactics, manipulation, and trickery designed to wear down their resistance. The Court pointed to police
Is
instructing officers to engage in tactics such as displaying confidence in a suspect’s guilt, minimizing th
ri-
ousness of the offense, wearing down individuals through continuous interrogation, and using the “M tt nd
Jeff” strategy in which one officer berates a suspect and the other gains the suspect’s trust by playing th
art
of his or her protector. The “false lineup” involves placing a suspect in a lineup and using fictitious
w t
to identify the suspect as the perpetrator. In another scenario, fictitious witnesses identify the defendant
the
perpetrator of a previously undisclosed serious crime, and the defendant panics and confesses to the
ff nse
under investigation.
Before you begin to read the
Miranda
decision, you may find it interesting to learn about Ernesto Vf nda
the individual whose name is attached to one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court decisions in
cent
history. Miranda was in constant trouble as a young man and committed a felony car theft in 1954 whil
n the
eighth grade. This arrest was followed by a string of convictions and brief detentions for burglary, attemm d race
and assault, curfew violations, “Peeping Tom” activities, and car theft. In 1959, Miranda was sentenced t a vear
in prison and, following his release, seemingly settled down and found a regular job, moved in with a w man
and fathered a child. In 1963, Miranda reverted to his previous pattern of criminal behavior and kidnann d and
raped eighteen-year-old “Jane Doe.” The victim identified him in a lineup, and his car had been seen n the
neighborhood of the attack. Miranda confessed in less than two hours and was convicted and sentenced to not
less than twenty nor more than thirty years in prison. Miranda’s conviction was affirmed by the Arizona S
reme
Court, and his lawyers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In reading
Miranda v. Arizona,
pay attention to the procedural protections the Supreme Court requi
that
the police provide a suspect. Why are these specific protections required?
vVas
Miranda’s
confession
admissible
at
trial?
Miranda
v. Arizona,
384
U.S.
436 (1966),
Warren, C.J.
pacts
On March 13,
1963< petitioner / Ernesto Miranda, was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. He was there identified by the complain- ing w ^ ess 'Jh e police then took him to "Interrogation ? - oon °' o f the detective bureau. There, he was ques- tioned by two police officers. The officers admitted at trial tn at Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an attorney present. Two hours later, the officers emerged from the interrogation room with a written confession signed by Miranda. At the top of the statement was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily without threats or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understand- ing any statement I make may be used against me." At h is tnal before a jury, the written confession was admit- tCd l T eV denc e over the objection of defense counsel Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape He was sentenced to twenty to thirty years imprison- ment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Mirandas constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession and affirmed the convic- tion. . . . the Court emphasized the fact that Miranda did not specifically request counsel. . . . Issue The constitutional issue we decide . . . is the admissibil- ity 01 statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom cases before 5? Y si § nifican t wa ^ I n eac h of the four ,. ffi Court, the defendant was questioned P ticers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney '"oridTri 11 m WhiCf t h e wa s cu t off fro m th e outside W ft 11 H 11 ^ 116 oi these cases was the defendant given ltteZeZl C £: n WaminS f h i; J ht S a t * e ° Utse t . . ,. ."Sation process. In all the cases, the ques- !aned S

Order | Check Discount