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.
Accordingly, the superior court appointed the Public Defender Agency to represent Cook. Cook went to trial and was convicted. About a year and a half later, the Alaska Supreme Court overturned the judgment in Cook’s civil case and remanded the civil case to the superior court for further proceedings. (Cook ultimately settled the civil lawsuit.) After the civil judgment was overturned, Cook filed for post-conviction relief.
In the end the jury found the two "guilty of speaking in Grace Church Street" but refused to add "to an unlawful assembly". The judge said to the jury that they "shall not be dismissed until we have a verdict that the court will accept". The jury then changed the verdict to "guilty of speaking to an assembly in Grace Church Street", the judge had them locked up overnight without food, water or heat. Penn protested this and the judge ordered him bound and gagged. Finally, after a two-day fast, the jury returned a not guilty verdict.
Mr. Morin was charged with the crime of first degree murder on the date of April 22, 1985. On February 7th, 1986 Mr. Morin was acquitted. On June 5th, 1987 a new trial was order by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on November 17th, 1988. Upon the new trial Mr. Morin was convicted and found guilty of the murder of Christine Jessup on July 30th, 1992. After severing almost 10 years in jail on the day of January 23, 1995 Guy Paul Morin was exonerated as a finding done by a new DNA testing which was not previously available before.
During the trial, Mark Fuhrman perjured himself on the witness stand, later pleading nolo contendere to a charge of perjury. 2) What were the defenses used? In a criminal trial, unlike a civil trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They had collected a lot of evidence from the crime scene and from Simpson’s home. They also had collected a history of domestic violence between Simpson and Brown while they were married.
During this case Ernesto Miranda a resident of Phoenix was charged with kidnapping, rape and robbery. Allegedly he confessed to committing these crimes, which the police had supposedly recorded. But because he had, had no counsel and he hadn’t been told his rights he was convicted and charged with 20 to 30 years in prison. But Miranda felt as if this was wrong, so he appealed the courts and got the case reviewed in 1966 by The Supreme Court. After the case was reviewed, The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the police couldn’t use the confession because they had failed to inform Miranda of his rights to consul and against self-incrimination.
The police told Escobedo that his alleged coconspirator in the shooting of his brother-in-law had confessed and Escobedo was involved. The police were able to obtain a written confession, and Escobedo was eventually convicted of murder. Escobedo appealed his conviction, claiming his confession was obtained without his lawyer being present in violation of his right to counsel, and should be thrown out. DECISION/REASONING: The Supreme Courts decision held for the first time that defendants had a right to counsel even before they were indicted for a certain crime. Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment However, the decision was overshadowed by the court's Miranda decision two years later, and later decisions by both the Supreme Court and lower courts indicated the decision in Escobedo was to be limited to its facts.
Berghuis v. Thompkins Van Chester Thompkins was convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and several firearms related charges, in a Michigan state court. Thompkins went on to appeal and said that his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that he asks but was denied effective counsel at trail. “The Sixth Circuit held that the Michigan Supreme Court's finding that Thompkins waived his Fifth Amendment right was unreasonable because Thompkins refused to sign an acknowledgement that he had been informed of his Miranda rights and rarely made eye contact with the officer throughout the three hour interview” (Rosenzweig & Shatz, 2010). The Sixth Circuit found Thompkins did not waive his Miranda rights and that ineffective counsel unfairly prejudiced him. The issue in this case is as followed: “Whether a state court’s determination that a defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were not violated — where he was interrogated for three hours while silent before making an incriminating statement and where his lawyer failed to request a limiting instruction — is entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C.
Following on from this, Gudjohnsson carried out a study involving a case study about a 17 year old boy who confessed to crime and was subsequently imprisoned for one year. Later it was found out that his confession was false and he was not guilty of committing the crime. Gudjohnsson wondered how false confessions can arise. The aim of the study was therefore to document the case of the false confession of a youth who was at the time of the confession distressed and susceptible to interrogative pressure. In 1987 two elderly women were found battered to death in their homes, their savings were stolen and there was evidence of sexual assault.
His sentence is changed from manslaughter and he has now been sentenced to 18-20 years in prison for manslaughter, followed by four to five years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm. (Ryan, 2013) During a trial, the evidence is again presented to a court of law or a jury. Being sentenced to Capital Punishment is very unlikely to happen for Burke, as the state of Massachusetts has abolished Capital Punishment and only uses it in very severe cases where the suspect is tried federally (McCarthy, 2014) instead of regionally, like the Boston Bomber Case. Burke most likely got this sentence, because he pleaded guilty, possibly after enough evidence was gathered to prove his guilt and thereby “has taken responsibility for shooting the victim, resulting in his death, over what appears to have been a dispute about money” (Boston.com, 2013) Burke is most likely to receive this sentence, because it is exactly the crime he committed. He committed manslaughter which was proven by the messages on the phone and apparently other evidence that has been found.