Governance (Case Study Sample)

1 Briefly discuss the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and note how it may or may not be applicable to your situation. * In Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney before questioning them. This ruling came about as a result of the case of Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested and questioned by police without being informed of his rights. Miranda later confessed to a crime, but his confession was not allowed as evidence at his trial because it had been obtained without Miranda being aware of his rights. The Miranda ruling has since been applied to all suspects in police custody, and it has become an important part of our criminal justice system. In my situation, I read my Miranda rights before being questioned by police, so I would argue that the Miranda ruling is applicable to my case. 1 Identify, define and discuss any relevant Fifth Amendment and sixth Amendment protection and discuss the rules and exceptions to Miranda and how they might apply to your new predicament. * The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from self-incrimination. This means that citizens cannot be forced to incriminate themselves through testimony or other forms of evidence. The Sixth Amendment protects citizens from being tried for the same crime twice, known as double jeopardy. It also guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial. The rules and exceptions to Miranda vary from state to state, but generally, Miranda applies when a person is in police custody and is being interrogated by police. There are exceptions to Miranda, such as when a person is voluntarily talking to police or when a person is in imminent danger. 2 Discuss what if any negative impact a violation of your fifth or sixth Amendment rights will have on the use of any statement you may have made to investigator Roberts or any additional proof that the police might have obtained, as the result of your interview, at the time of trial, can this evidence be excluded? Why, and why not? Identify, define and discuss any relevant legal theories, * The impact of a violation of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment would likely be that any statements made by the defendant to Investigator Roberts would be inadmissible at trial. Additionally, any other evidence obtained as a result of the interview (e.g. through a search warrant) could also be inadmissible. The rationale for this is that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated, and thus the evidence obtained as a result of that violation should not be used against the defendant. * The doctrine of negligence – This legal doctrine applies when the defendant has breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and that breach has caused the plaintiff to suffer injury or damage. In this case, the doct...