In 1965, Miranda v. Arizona created a specific set of procedures for police interrogations and evidence, according to the Oyez Project. The case was one of a series involving protections for the accused found in the Fifth Amendment.Know More
According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Miranda v. Arizona was the defining case for four separate cases that all involved the same Fifth Amendment question. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Miranda in that the investigating officers violated his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation in which the officers used misleading and inaccurate statements to elicit a confession.
According to the Legal Information Institute, the Miranda ruling led to a series of pronouncements and procedures. These included the inadmissibility at trial of statements taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment. A “privilege against self-incrimination” existed through the establishment of a right to remain silent, the right to an attorney for criminal matters and the right for the indigent to have an attorney appointed. The accused also had the right to answer some questions without waiving all Fifth Amendment rights. Further, it was determined that those in custody also needed to be made aware of these rights.
Authorities accused and convicted Ernesto Miranda of sexual assault, according to Jrank. The defendant did not definitively claim that Miranda was her attacker. However, during a closed interrogation, the investigating officers falsely told Miranda that the defendant did identify him. This ended in a signed confession by Miranda.Learn more about Law
The mini-Miranda law refers to Section 807, Part 11 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as amended in September of 1996, requiring debt collectors to provide a certain statement in their initial contact with a debtor. It requires the collectors to identify themselves as attempting to collect a debt and inform the debtor that they use any information they obtain for that purpose.Full Answer >
Worcester v. Georgia (1832) found that statutory jurisdiction of native lands was the sole right of the federal government, according to Touro College Law Center. This was a significant case for federalism, which held that states did not have the power to pass laws governing Native Americans.Full Answer >
The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland established that Congress had the power to establish a national bank and that a state (in this case, Maryland) did not have the power to tax branches of the federal government that are carrying out powers legal in the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the states did indeed have the power to levy taxes, but that the federal laws control the laws in the states, which cannot control the federal institutions.Full Answer >
In 1954, the landmark Hernandez vs. Texas case established Mexican-Americans as a separate class from whites and African-Americans, according to the Texas State Historical Association. The Supreme Court ruling challenged judicial discrimination against Mexicans by citing the 14th Amendment to prevent Hernandez from being convicted by an all-white jury.Full Answer >