After taken to trial, the prosecutor's case “consisted solely of his confession” to obtain a conviction. The Maricopa County Superior Court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” as well as the absence of an attorney during the interrogation and should have been excluded from trial. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
The “Miranda” warning is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old woman 10 days earlier. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against
Prosecution Argument: Brinegar already had a reputation on transporting illegal alcohol, and when was pulled over he admitted to having some alcohol on him. Defense Argument: That the police had no probable cause on seizing the alcohol, or a warrant. Decision/ Rationale: While the police don’t always have to be correct in conducting a warrantless search, but the search must always be reasonable. Dissent: 6-3: Mr.Jackson dissented that, “the 4th amendment and are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable
If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
Stanford v Kentucky was a United States Supreme court case that dealt with the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least sixteen years old at the time the crime was committed. Stanford was 17 years old at the time he committed murder in Kentucky. On January 17, 1981, Stanford and an accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized twenty year old Barpel Poore during and after their robbery at the gas station Poore worked at. Hearings were held to decide on whether Stanford’s case should be held in Juvenile court or adult. The juvenile court did make the decision to transfer his case, therefore; Stanford would be trialed as an adult under a state statute permitting such action as to offenders who are either charged with a class A felony, capital crime or anyone over the age of sixteen and charged with a felony.
Here are the statics: “Since 1989 when the first DNA exoneration occurred, 328 defendants have been exonerated in the United States after being convicted of serious crimes such as rape and murder. The exonerated were 316 men and 12 women; 145 of them were cleared by DNA identification and 183 by other kinds of evidence” (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/May10_04/25.shtml). What went wrong? * Eyewitness Misidentification * Improper Forensic Science * False Confessions * Overzealousness/Public Pressure Eyewitness Misidentification Imagine being a victim so frighten and traumatized after such a hideous unimaginable experience. It can be hard, almost impossible to accurately describe the assailant.
Miranda V Arizona I. Facts: The Supreme Court consolidated four different cases that all had issues with the admissibility of evidence; specifically evidence obtained during police interrogations. Ernesto Miranda the first defendant was arrested for kidnapping and rape, he was an immigrant and the officers did not notify him of his rights. Miranda signed a confession after only two hours of interrogation. The confession also came with a statement that he was told of his rights.
The conductor called the police and had Plessy arrested immediately; he spent the night in the local jail and was released the next morning on bond. The Citizens Committee had already retained a New York attorney, Albion W. Tourgee, who had worked on civil rights cases for African Americans before. Plessy’s case went to trial a month after his arrest and Tourgee argued that Plessy’s civil rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution had been violated. While Judge John Ferguson had once ruled against separate cars for interstate railroad travel (different states had various outlooks on segregation), he ruled against Plessy in this case because he believed that the state had a right to set segregation policies within its own boundaries. Tourgee took the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which upheld Fergusons decision.
Right to Counsel Resha Harris CJA/364 May, 16, 2012 Gary, Looney Right to Counsel When a suspect is arrested and charged, he or she has the right of a counsel with an experienced attorney. In cases, which he or she cannot afford a lawyer the state has to provide one for the accused? “Police interrogation was a major concern. Without representation by counsel, the defendant is alone and vulnerable to improper police tactics. In two late 1950s cases, Crooker v .California (1958) and Cicenia v. LA gay (1958), dissenting justice argued that voluntary confessions should be excluded on the grounds that defendants requests for attorney were denied (Zalman, p., 2008).
The prosecution, the judge and the defendant all benefit when defense counsel performs in the way the Constitution envisions. The broken public defense system in our State doesn't have to be like this. It can and must be fixed. As a result of these deficiencies, many individuals facing criminal charges are compelled to appear in court without a lawyer at critical junctures, such as when bail decisions are made. This often results in unnecessary or excessive bail being set and keeps people who cannot afford it in jail awaiting trial Many public defense lawyers also fail to: meet or consult with clients at critical stages in their cases; investigate the charges against their clients or hire experts who can assist with case preparation or testify at trial; file necessary pre-trial motions; and provide meaningful consultation before clients accept plea bargains, regardless of whether a charge is appropriate or a viable defense exists.