Evan Delling

Professor Rabun
02/22/2012
CASE BRIEF:
Miranda VS. Arizona, 384 U.S 436 (1966)
Issue: A Hispanic male by the name of Miranda was apprehended by police
officers from his home for suspicion of kidnapping and rape. The State Supreme
Court sentenced him to 20-30 years in prison. The facts in question of his
apprehension were if his 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendment rights violated?
4th: Prohibits the government from making unreasonable searches and seizures. Its
conclusive that Mr. Miranda was not in Plain view of the kidnapping or rape.
Miranda did not consent to the officers searching his home. The search of
Mirandas home extended beyond what was specified in the warrant, which the
officers never received.
5th: For criminal defendants there are three important factors to the Fifth
Amendment due process, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. There was
infringement in the due process of the due process of Mr. Miranda due to the fact
that he was not given his rights, could not understand his rights and not provided
an interpreter. The prosecution believes that they were following procedure that has
been in place for many years. Prosecution also holds that Miranda was an ex-
convict and there for they did not have to treat him with the same respect that they
would treat a first time arrest with. Prosecution also claims that Negligence of the
law is not a viable defense. The fact is the Prosecutions fact that he is an ex-
convict is irrelevant. Mirandas Fifth Amendment rights were violated not once but
five times.
6th/8th: The Sixth Amendment holds that Mr. Miranda has the right to a lawyer and
the right to appoint a lawyer. Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual
punishment. Mr. Miranda was never given a lawyer during the interrogation and
this resulted in a written confession that was obtained illegally. In what the
Prosecution calls a custodial interrogation and following protocol Miranda was
bullied, scared and deprived of water. This resulted in stressful circumstances and
psychological damage. In light of more evidence by the defense Mirandas rights
were also written on the top of his confession.
Holding: The defense moves that in view of the evidence that the confession
given by Miranda should be excluded from the case in trial and a motion to
suppress the evidence. The prosecution believes that the confession was
legally obtained and therefore his confession should stand in trial. The court
decided that a certain set of warnings must be administered before any
interrogations take place.