Criminal Evidence and Procedure: Miranda v. Arizona - Essay Sample

In Miranda v. Arizona case, the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, his house was stormed by nine police officers suspecting drug trafficking. The defendant has a history of possession of illegal firearms. Nonetheless, the officer has to exercise a valid search warrant and conduct a thorough sweep of the crime scene to account for all individuals and collect valid evidence to be used in the case. For this case, the officers discovered that the suspect was reclining in a chair in the living room. The suspect handcuffed, and the officers explained the reason for their presence. The suspect was then interrogated, where the suspect responded that eight loaded semi-automatic pistols are under the bed in the master bedroom. Other discovered evidence was drug paraphernalia and nine boxes of unused bullets, various amounts of illicit weapons, drugs, and money throughout the dwelling. More to be discovered, including shoeboxes containing cocaine and marijuana, all were seized during the execution. After a few exchanges, the suspect was read his Miranda Warnings. However, when the suspect asked one of the officers if he should call his attorney, he was denied.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In the above case, the defendant – Miranda, while in police custody, was questioned by nine police officers, detectives, and a prosecuting attorney who had been cut off from the outside world. The defendant was not informed of his rights before the police interrogation. Also, during the search process that led to arrest and the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, including directing the police officers to where most of the recovered evidence was hidden. It has also been previously known that Miranda had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, and had no counsel present. At trial, the prosecution’s case consisted solely of his confession (The Supreme Court, 1966).

According to the Fifth Amendment, a defendant has the right to refuse “to be a witness against himself. On the Amendment, a criminal suspect has the right against self-incrimination and cannot be imprisoned without due process of law” (Center for Legislative Archives, 1791). Under this Amendment, the constitution limits police procedures, and statements made by the suspect during the arrest or Miranda confession cannot be used as evidence during a trial (Kim, 2017). Under this Amendment, there are several rights addressed. 1) right to a trial without delay, 2) prohibition from being judged twice on the same felony, 3) a right against forced self-incrimination, 4) fair trial, and 5) a guarantee to an attorney (Kim, 2017). For instances that an officer can be allowed to search for private property if there is a legal warrant of search, for example, Davis v. the United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946) case. If the search is connected to a lawful arrest, and if the item being searched is in plain view, for example, the case of Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985) (United States Court, n.d).

Besides, the sixth states that a defendant has a guaranteed right to a speedy and fair trial and has a right to a lawyer, an impartial jury, and the right to know who has accused him or her, as well as the nature of the evidence against him or her (Center for Legislative Archives, 1791). Unfortunately, Miranda’s fifth and sixth amendment rights were violated, and thus his attorney has the right and grounds to be granted the motion to suppress the suspect’s statements. Unfortunately, the attorney may not be in a position to suppress the pistol and other incriminating shreds of evidence retrieved from the suspect’s apartment because due process was followed, and a valid search warrant including a reason for the such was presented to the suspected.

This Amendment states that a grand jury must start “serious criminal charges. A person cannot be tried twice for the same offense (double jeopardy) or have property taken away without just compensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot be imprisoned without due process of law” (Center for Legislative Archives, 1791). It is under this Amendment where the constitution limits the extent of police procedures. Under this Amendment, there are several rights addressed. 1) right to a trial without delay, 2) prohibition from being judged twice on the same felony, 3) a right against forced self-incrimination, 4) fair trial, and 5) a guarantee that the government cannot seize private property without a due compensation (Kim, 2017).

The Miranda v. Arizona case attracted many reactions from both the rights advocacy teams and the public for allegedly learning that Miranda claimed the officers, including the prosecution team, violated his Fifth Amendment rights (The Supreme Court, 1966). According to the case, the officers interviewed him without a Miranda and used the defendant’s confessions to self-criminate him. The fifth Amendment states that Miranda warnings only applied to those in custody and are presented prior to the interrogation process (Kim, 2017). Many offenders have gone through the same as what Miranda went through. Luckily, the Fifth Amendment is playing an essential role in ensuring that the trials are held immediately and prohibits the offender from self-incriminating on the same felony and a fair trial (Center for Legislative Archives, 1791). It is under this Amendment where the constitution limits the extent of police procedures.

References

Center for Legislative Archives. (1791). The Bill of Rights. Washington: National Archives and Records Administration.

Cornell Law School. (n.d). Sixth Amendment. Retrieved from Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

Kim, J. (2017, June ). Fifth Amendment. Retrieved from Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment

The Supreme Court. (1966). Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Retrieved from The Supreme Court: https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html#:~:text=In%20Miranda%20v.,attorney%20and%20against%20self-incrimination.&text=Miranda%20was%20convicted%20of%20both,to%2030%20years%20in%20prison.

United States Court. (n.d). What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? Retrieved from United States Court: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0