Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts of the Case Began in 1963 when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona and taken to into custody. A crime victim identified him in a police lineup at the Maricopa County Jail. He was charged with rape and robbery. Two officers take Miranda to Interrogation Room No. 2.
After the Arizona Supreme Court threw out his appeal, Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1966 and in a five to four decision ruled that the prosecution could not use Miranda’s confession as evidence in his trial (McBride, 2006). The Supreme Court stated that the confession was obtained unconstitutionally because the police failed to inform Miranda of his rights. Thus, to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law, the Court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated (McBride, 2006). These statements are now called the Miranda Rights.
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.
(Siegel & Worrall, 2010) all defendants have their right to their own counsel and even represent themselves then they waive their right to have an attorney. This is a very tricky subject because if that does happen to be your choice you run the risk of not understanding some of the material that is being covered including the lingo or not knowing what full options are available to you as a
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.
The court outlined the basic standards for determining competency due to this case. Milton Dusky, a 33 year old man, was charged with assisting in the rape of an underage female and kidnapping. He was clearly suffering from schizophrenia but was found Competent to Stand Trial and received a sentence of 45 years. On petition of writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, the petitioner requested that his conviction be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court decided to
They must have a clear and concise understanding of the facts that may surface later and have a defense against these breaches of information. The attorney must ensure that the old adage seen in rooms of Alcoholics’ Anonymous, “What you hear here,
U.S. Supreme Court Search and Seizure: Arizona vs. Gant 1) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person and a person’s property. In order to conduct a search, the police must have probable cause and generally, a search warrant is required in order for the police to search. When law enforcement conducts a search without a warrant, the search is per se unreasonable. This means there is a presumption that the search was unreasonable and the burden is on the government to demonstrate that the search was reasonable and not illegal. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer.
Maria Everson Zaborsky Infamous Crime Cases An infamous case that was solved by forensic evidence was the Theodore Robert "Ted" Bundy case. He was an American serial killer, rapist, kidnapper, and necrophile. He assaulted many women and girls killing between 30-40 people throughout seven different states, which Ted Bundy confessed to. He also cut the head of 12 victims off and kept the head in his house as a memory to always have, he would also kill women and later return to the crime scene to have intercourse with the body until it began to rot or was destructed by wild animals. In 1975 Ted was arrested in Utah but was released due to the little evidence, Two years later was convicted of kidnapping and escaped.
He was sentenced for 25 years. After serving 16 Years in prisons he was released on Parole. During this period he kidnapped a 12 year old school girl. Later on she was found to be raped and murdered. There was huge public outcry.