Answer to Question #177493 in History for Devaughn Mccall

Question #177493

In the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966 the judge ruled that a suspect must be given their rights before being questioned.

Expert's answer

Miranda was arrested and questioned by police officers in which a written confession was drafted. This written draft made the jury rule that Miranda was guilty. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for being found guilty of kidnapping and rape. Miranda made an appeal in the Supreme Court that his rights were violated before he was questioned. The court made it clear that if the police do not inform people they arrest about certain constitutional rights, including their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, then their confessions may not be used as evidence at trial. The Mapp v.Ohio 1961 was used as a reference. This was backed by the fact that the process to inform the accused of their rights is "expedient (and) simple. The fifth amendment privilege was also considered and found out to be "fundamental to our system of constitutional rule" However, the Supreme overruled against him and ruled that his rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

Need a fast expert's response?

Submit order

and get a quick answer at the best price

for any assignment or question with DETAILED EXPLANATIONS!


No comments. Be the first!

Leave a comment

Ask Your question

New on Blog