Q:

What was the significance of Miranda v. Arizona?

A:

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.

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.


Is this answer helpful?

Similar Questions

  • Q:

    What is the definition of the Miranda Doctrine?

    A:

    The Miranda doctrine, more typically referred to as "Miranda rights," is a set of rights applicable to police detainees under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Miranda rights were established in the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda rights are the basis of police procedure for the detention of suspects.

    Full Answer >
    Filed Under:
  • Q:

    What was the outcome of Miranda vs Arizona?

    A:

    About.com explains that the primary outcome of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) was the creation of "Miranda rights," which must be explained to an individual suspected of a crime before questioning by the authorities. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney's presence, among others.

    Full Answer >
    Filed Under:
  • Q:

    What is a mini-Miranda law?

    A:

    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 >
    Filed Under:
  • Q:

    What is the significance of Baker v. Carr?

    A:

    In 1962, Baker v. Carr established that the federal courts had jurisdiction to intervene in voter redistricting. The plaintiff lived in Tennessee, which had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901. The state was required to redistrict every 10 years according to population, and the lack of redistricting diluted the representation of citizens in urban areas.

    Full Answer >
    Filed Under:

Explore