U.S. Supreme Court Case Assignment: The Miranda Rights (Essay Sample)
Everyone has heard or seen the “Miranda Rights” on television and/or in movies. In fact, most people could probably recite what they are without reading the actual U.S. Supreme Court case or reviewing a criminal law textbook. However, there are a number of factors at play that determine when the Miranda rights must be given to a suspect. Does an officer have to Mirandize you if he walks up on the street and says, “How are you today?” When do constitutional provisions “kick in”?
How would you explain the Miranda warnings and their significance to a friend of yours not in the criminal justice field? At a minimum, address the following questions:
What does the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mean when it states that a person shall not “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”?
When must a police officer read an accused their “Miranda warnings”?
If a police officer violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, what happens to the criminal case against that defendant?
The Miranda Rights
Name
Institution
The Miranda Rights
The Miranda warning, also referred to as the Miranda rights, is a right to remain silent given by a police officer to a crime suspect in custody before any interrogation takes place. Usually, this is done to preserve admissibility of their statements against them during criminal proceedings. Each person that is placed under arrest in the United States usually has to be given his or her Miranda warnings which are drawn from the 5th Amendment, classified under the Bill of Rights. This implies that if an individual is not made aware of his or her to counsel before being interrogated, then the statement obtained during cross-examination may not be admissible against the defendant in court. It should also be noted that police are only required to Mirandize an individual if they intend to conduct an interrogation under custody (Dorsett and McVeigh, 2012).
Additionally, arrests can sometimes occur without the Miranda warning being given to a suspect. However, if the police later make a decision to cross-examine the suspect, the warning has to be given at that particular time. Moreover, the police’s vigilance to this rule implies less chance of a case being overturned in court because of poor procedure on their part and also to ensure due process during the trial. Nevertheless, if the safety of the public is at stake, then questions may be asked without the suspect being Mirandized and any other evidence acquired may be used against the defendant under such circumstances. Concisely, the Miranda warning is all about being protected from self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment.
The person in custody or arrested must, however, still answer questions asked concerning their name, identity, age, and address. Also, the individual can be searched in order to protect the arresting officer in case the person is in possession of a weapon. If it happens that a suspect has been Mirandized and he or she waives these rights, implying one wishes to speak to the police freely without the presence of an attorney, one may be later allowed to change his o...
Other Topics:
- Law Assignment Paper 4: Relation to Criminal JusticeDescription: Create a definition in your own words, and provide the constitutional reasons due process is required along with your own assessment...1 page/≈275 words| 2 Sources | APA | Law | Essay |
- Difference between actus reus andmens reaDescription: Difference between actus reus andmens rea Law Essay...1 page/≈275 words| 1 Source | APA | Law | Essay |
- Parties and Pretrial ProceduresDescription: Parties and Pretrial Procedures Law Essay...3 pages/≈825 words| 3 Sources | APA | Law | Essay |