In phoenix, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for two feloneies. The police failed to advise him of his rights to remain silenet and of his right to an attorney when they questioned him at the local station house. He signed a confession after being questioned by the police for two hours. He was convicted and sentenced to twenty to thirty years of imprisonment. The united states supreme court agreed to hear his case. Should the Supreme Court overturn his conviction? Explain your answer.
2007-02-11 12:01:04 · 9 answers · asked by me 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
You do know this is an old case now, don't you? This is the famous "Miranda Rights" case. Of course the conviction should have been overturned. He asked for an atty. When that happens, the interrogation stops. If Miranda was not free to leave, he was in custodial interrogation. The "right to counsel" is another of the rights unavailable to most other countries in the world. It is, rightfully, one of our most important rights. It means you cannot torture a confession out of a person because the police officer thinks the person probably did it. "Probably" doesn't cut it in America. BTW--isn't it odd that no one ever asks for an atty on CSI/Law and Order etc. Guess the programs would be a lot shorter if they did.
2007-02-11 12:12:31 · answer #1 · answered by David M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, assuming that he was questioned without someone reading him his Miranda warning then the confession is inadmissible. In other words, the court can toss out the confession.
That doesn't mean that the suspect is free to go. Other evidence gained through other means can still be presented and if that evidence is strong enough to gain a conviction then the person may still be convicted and sentenced.
If the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case and does find that the confession was gained improperly then there are several options they may take. If the totality of the other evidence would reasonably lead to a conviction then they can let the judgment stand. If there is some question then the conviction may be over turned, the confession excluded and the case remanded back to a lower court. Once remanded, if the prosecutor still fills that the remaining evidence is strong enough then the subject can be tried again. If the prosecutor still doesn't feel that the available evidence is strong enough then he or she may drop the case.
The Miranda warning only pertains to interrogation when a person has been seized; meaning that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. This could be an arrest or an interview where the average person may not reasonably feel free to leave even though they are not under arrest. It does not pertain to the gathering of other evidence unless this evidence is only discoverable through the confession. If it could reasonably be discovered through other investigatory means, even if it wasn't, then it can still be admitted.
2007-02-11 19:00:41 · answer #2 · answered by deus ex machina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they should not overturn the conviction, it's about time Miranda gets overturned. Miranda is a warning not a right. A right is guaranteed by the Constitution and ours says nothing about Miranda. So it's a warning, not a right.
There was a good case that went before the US Supreme Court a couple years ago which almost lead to Miranda being overturned, perhaps this is the next case which will lead to it being gone forever. There is no need for it anymore.
2007-02-11 12:29:21 · answer #3 · answered by Breacher 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Miranda warning tells the person that he has a right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, and that anything he does say can and will be held against him. Unfortunately, it is mandatory that the police advise the person of these so if he wasn't given the spiel then the conviction could very well be overturned by the Supreme Court. I don't totally agree with this but this is the law. The laws are in place to protect everyone's rights-the innocent and the guilty.
2007-02-11 12:10:43 · answer #4 · answered by Nancy W 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The name 'Miranda' ought to ring a bell for you.
The ammendment in question is the right not to incriminate oneself, that would be the 5th ammendment. The problem is, the average suspect may not understand it.
What the court does in that type of situation is toss the verdict (not the case), and send it back to the lower court. The confession, and IMPORTANT any other evidence obtained from it are inadmissible in court. If that was all the evidence, the DA will usually drop the case. If they continue without it, it is still possible to get a guilty verdict. It depends on the case.
This case of course brought about the Miranda act, which specifically spelled out what the police must do prior to obtaining a confession, particularly without a lawyer present.
-Dio
2007-02-11 12:19:51 · answer #5 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not so sure because the Supreme Court deals with issues in laws that have already been passed, they're not like a district appeals court (although they are the highest appeals court in the USA). If they are being charged with not reading Maranda Rights then I don't know what the Supreme Court would be doing in hearing arguments.
They determine the Constitutionalism of laws and can overturn any law or order by judicial review from the ancient Marbury vs. Madison case. They may be able to do something but this whole implication must have more behind it if the Supreme Court as agreed to hear arguments from both sides. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in whether or not they come to a real decision.
2007-02-11 12:09:10 · answer #6 · answered by I want my *old* MTV 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This was the famous case of Gideon versus Wainright, the 1963 US Supreme Court case that established the right of any criminal defendant to have a lawyer appointed for him if he could not afford to pay one. The court held that if a poor man was denied a right to counsel because he was poor, it was a denial of the right to a fair trial and a denial of due process. Since then, all states have to provide an attorney to any criminal defendant facing serious crime charges. Incidentally, Gideon was given a new trial, and at that trial, was represented by an attorney. He was found not guilty. Go to your local library, and read a wonderful book "Gideon's Trumpet" by Anthony Lewis, about the case.
2016-03-29 02:45:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They already did.... there fore the term "Mirandaize" which means reading the rights to the suspect. I may or may not agree with that.. however the Supreme Court has already ruled on it and it's settled law.
2007-02-11 12:27:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They did, that's why the police now have to read you your 'MIRANDA RIGHTS' when you are arrested. Oh, by the way, Miranda did not learn. His case was overturned and he did receive a new trial, was found guilty again and served 11 years. AFter he was released, he was killed in a knife fight. Guess what? He assailant was read his Miranda rights and he refused to talk. Ironic isn't it.
2007-02-11 12:11:10 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋