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.
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.
For example, there was a “man [who was] sentenced to prison for 25 years to life under the law for stealing a bottle of vitamins” (Murphy). In March 1999, when the Three Strikes law was challenged by this case, the Supreme Court “refused to hear” (Murphy) a word that was said by the people. By putting them in prison for an excessive amount of years, housing for serious offenders is being made unavailable which will lead to an increase “to an already overcrowded and expensive prison system” (Messerli). Some of the people may have committed the innocuous crime to help their spouse and children. When used, the Three Strikes law treats all crimes the exact same way, which makes the law unjust.
Simpson was accused of the double murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. O.J was subsequently acquitted of the crimes and walked off a free man. O.J’s attorney, Johnnie Cochran conducted a well-executed plan of defense against the allegations made. There was a strong lack of consistency and there were major flaws in the prosecution case. The LAPD violated the 4th Amendment when they searched O.J’s house without a search warrant.
The Mandatory Minimum sentencing laws were put into place for major and habitual drug offenders to be behind bars for years, but in essence we have been faced with unintended consequences of mandatory minimum sentences. The mandatory minimum guidelines are so outrageous, and although one should be held accountable for any illegal activity the guidelines leave no discretion for judge. Drug cases before the mandatory minimum drug law took effect; the sentencing for such crimes was nowhere near as harsh. Defendants that have been sentenced under these guidelines often have no criminal history
During a grueling two hour-long interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to these crimes (McBride, 2006). Only finishing school up until the ninth grade, Ernesto wasn’t considered a very educated man. His lack of education, paired with the fact that he had a history of mental instability, made a confession from Miranda easily obtainable without having council present to represent him. With his recorded confession, the prosecution was able to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, thus sentencing him to 20 to 30 years in prison (McBride, 2006). After the Arizona Supreme Court threw out his appeal, Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
They had violated statutes 53-22 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev). 55-22 made the use of any drug, medical article, or instrument to prevent conception a crime punishable by fine or jail. The latter held anyone who “assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense” as liable as the principal offender. The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. The case Poe v. Ullman (1961) dealing with the same statute, had been brought before the Court, but they refused to hear the case because no one had been charged with a crime.
The Supreme Court ended up setting aside their convictions stating that the boy’s illiteracy prevented them from having a fair trial and that they were denied the right to appointed counsel. (Constitutional Law, 407) For the longest time the right to counsel was just for federal crimes or for those that fall within the indulgent person’s right to counsel; until the U.S. Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainright. In this case the defendant argued that the court had to appoint him counsel on the soul fact that he could not afford one. The state of Florida said no, that he was not incapable of understanding or representing himself. He was convicted and later filed a petition for habeas
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
Minors should not be tried as adults because they have not experienced the world like adults have, and they are not competent enough to go through or understand a trial. Many argue that minors should be tried as adults because they know what they are doing, and since society is changing and it’s not how it used to be 10 years ago, minors should be tried as adults for the reason that they need to learn their lesson and realize the crime they did was wrong. But in a recent study examining the mental health of minors after being tried as adults says, “66% of youth processed in adult criminal court had at least one psychiatric disorder and 43% had two or more types of disorders”. Another study was done for adults and it said, “less than 35% of adult males have a psychiatric disorder compared to 64% of transferred Youth”. I compared the two studies, and you can see that minors being tried as an adult have more of a chance to at least one psychiatric disorder.