Miranda Essay, Research Paper

The Miranda rights all started in 1963. Ernest Miranda was taken into custody by Phoenix police as a suspect for the kidnapping and rape of a girl. The Phoenix police department questioned Ernest for two vigorous hours. Miranda finally confessed orally to the crime, and then wrote out a statement admitting to the crime and describing what he had done. Miranda’s trial came to date; the crime was admitted despite his lawyer’s advice and he was convicted and sentenced.

Three years later Miranda’s appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The court had made its decision to make procedural requirements that the law enforcement must follow, which overturned Miranda’s conviction. Miranda v. Arizona caused a list, which the police must deliver to criminal suspects in the process of being questioned. Miranda was tried again and convicted. The prosecution team could not use the confession, but a former girlfriend had testified that he had told her about the kidnapping and rape. Miranda was paroled and was an ongoing offender and was eventually killed in a bar attack. Miranda v. Arizona changed the rights of the accused dramatically. Anything that the offender is to say before the rights were read to him would not be allowed in court. The offender must understand and waive his Miranda rights, which are: you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in the court of law, you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present while you are being questioned, if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before you answer any questions. The suspect must waive his right to be questioned. If the suspect does not waive his right the questioning must stop and a lawyer must be arranged. If the police are to ask the suspect to reconsider, his Miranda rights are being violated.

After Miranda was handed down, researchers immediately looked at the possible effect of the new rights. The negative results that the studies had shown had come true. Confession rates dropped from forty-nine percent to fourteen percent after Miranda.

With the lowered rate of confessions, the possibilities for clearance rate were estimated to drop dramatically. Surprisingly the clearance rate stayed somewhat stable. Researchers down the line have been studying possible changes to Miranda to make it more effective. Some possible examples studies were: Videotaped interrogations as a substitute, bring an arrested subject before a magistrate for questioning, or possibly abolishing the Miranda rights and return to the “voluntaries” system.

Miranda has caused many court cases down the line to the present. A recent incident was on June 26,2000, with a case called Dickerson v. United States. On January 24, 1997 an individual robbed a bank using a handgun. An eyewitness got the license plate number with a description of the car. The FBI tracked the car down to the residence. Dickerson agreed to go with the agent to the field office. Dickerson said he knew nothing about the robbery, but admitted to being in the town were the robbery had taken place. The agent got a search warrant through the magistrate for Dickerson’s house. The agent radioed an officer still at the house and told him about the warrant, then returned to Dickerson and the interview. He then told Dickerson about the search warrant, and then read him his Miranda rights. There were discrepancies to when the right had been read, and Dickerson had given a confession. The house was searched. The officers had found a handgun, gloves, a mask, and ink died money.

Dickerson was indicted in the U.S district Court for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery and using a firearm in the commission of crime. The U.S District Court found his statement in violation of the Miranda requirements. The court suppressed the statement and the items found by the search warrant. The District Court had found that his confession was voluntary and was allowed. Miranda once again is being looked at, to decide if a change is needed to make it constitutional and fair for both sides.