The Reversed Decisions of Three Cases by the Supreme Court

A judgment by the Supreme Court of Arizona regarding this case and other three similar cases was to be reviewed. This was after the defendants were interrogated and made to confess thus the circumstances under which this was done were questioned. This was after an issue of the defendants being denied their rights under the constitutional amendment act 5 came to light thus this was to be certified whether it was true or false. Act 5 states that the defendant has the right to be acquainted of the fact that any utterance that he makes can act as evidence against him in the court. During interrogation, and that the defendant also has a right to request the counsel of an attorney at such a time. The Supreme Court reversed judgments of three of the four cases of this caliber and affirmed the fourth one. Miranda V. Arizona case was one of them. Facts

Miranda appeared in the police station in in Phoenix after his arrest for being convicted of two crimes; one which involved kidnapping and rape and the other one involving robbery (Heilbronner, 2011). However, the two cases were handled separately. In Phoenix, Miranda was interrogated by two police officers who did not immediately make known to him that everything he said has the ability of being used in the court against him and that he had the right to request the counsel of a lawyer during the time of his interrogation.

The officers who interrogated him emerged from an interrogation room with a document signed by Miranda with his confession statement and another paragraph on top of the page indicating that he was made aware of his rights during the time of the interrogation. Regarding interrogation revolving around the second case where the culprit was accused of robbery, one of the officers claimed that he acquainted Miranda of his rights during the time of interrogation while the second officer affirmed that he did not take the responsibility of informing the culprit of his rights. Regardless, Miranda confessed to the accusations of the same. The written evidence together with an oral confession was then presented before the jury as evidence (Thomas, 2000).

Order custom essay The Reversed Decisions of Three Cases by the Supreme Court with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Procedural History

The appellant filed a case against Miranda regarding his act of kidnapping and rape which led to his arrest and interrogation in the police custody. After hours of interrogation, Miranda confessed to being guilty of his unruly acts, and the court found him guilty of his acts. The Arizona court of appeal certified that Miranda's rights during the time of interrogation were never violated since he did not specifically request counsel of an attorney and that there was written evidence signed by him affirming that he was involved in the activity that he was convicted for.

The appeal was by the idea that the respondent was denied his rights to seek counsel for an attorney and that his rights of "any statement you make can be used against you in the court of law" were not upheld (Heilbronner, 2011). However, he had already signed a document affirming his know-how regarding his privileges an act parallel to an intellectual relinquishment obligatory to renounce legitimate privileges. On appeal, the jury was to affirm the question of whether the evidence acquired by the law enforcing officers in the absence of an attorney was enough for the court to pass judgment against the respondent.

Issues

Issue 1: Whether evidence corrected from the defendant in police custody in the absence of an attorney could be used in the legal prosecution of the same party in a court of law and come up with a judgment? Issue 2: whether the constitutional rights of the responded to have counsel of an attorney were in any way apprised?

Holdings Issue 1: in the acquisition of the evidence which was acquired after interrogation of the respondent by the police in police custody, the respondent signed a document that had showed that he confirmed the accusations against him to be true. The same document had a statement which referred to the rights of a person during interrogation while in custody. It stated that as he confirmed his accusations, he was fully aware of his rights during such a time, that the privilege to exercise these rights was offered, but the respondent did not make use of the opportunity. Nonetheless, the officers went ahead to collect the evidence in the form of written material and oral confessions. In this case, the validity of the evidence to be used in the court was affirmed (Friedman, 2010).

Issue 2: regarding the issue of whether the respondent was denied his constitutional rights of being attended to by an attorney as he was being interrogated in the police custody. The court stated that the respondent had already signed a document stating that the respondent had full consent of his rights and he also did not make use of the privilege to request for the presence of an attorney during the time of his interrogation (Friedman, 2010). Reasoning

Issue 1: the court rejected his theory that the evidence used against him in the court of law was invalid stating that the evidence was collected when the respondent was made aware of his rights which was shown by his sign against his confession. Additionally, there was a statement that regarded the respondent as aware of his rights during the times of interrogation (Friedman, 2010).

Issue 2: the court rejected the theory of the respondent that he was denied the rights to have an attorney oversee his interrogation. The court stressed on the issue that the respondent did not specifically request for an attorney (Thomas, 2000). Decision With the evidence that was presented, the court sentenced the respondent to a 20-30 years imprisonment a judgment that came after the respondent was confirmed to be guilty for his actions. A statement by the Arizona court of appeal stated that there was no violation of the respondent's rights while the police tried to obtain his confessions thus affirming the conviction. The court also made an emphasis that Miranda did not request for an attorney (Thomas, 2000).

Comment

The case is a good example of how a court of appeal can certify the opinion of the other courts regardless of being in a different jurisdiction or being lower. The court of appeal in this case looked at the evidence that was presented and the complaints that were filed carefully thus coming up to a conclusion without favouring any side.

Reference

1. Friedman, B. (2010). The wages of stealth overruling (with particular attention to Miranda v. Arizona). Geo. LJ, 99, 1. Heilbronner, R. L. (2011). Miranda v. Arizona. In Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology Thomas III, G. C. (2000). The End of the Road for Miranda v. Arizona: On the History and (pp. 1635-1635). Springer New York.
2. Future of Rules for Police Interrogation. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 37, 1.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer