Miranda V Arizona Case

The Miranda V Arizona was an important ruling as it set standards and legal precedent for how suspects are arrested, constitutional rights respected and admissions accepted as legal into the court system. Before the Miranda ruling, people were forced into admitting to crimes they possibly had no connection to, or were forced to make confessions under very cruel and extreme manners. If the defendants were to challenge these confessions, they were determined on a case by case basis. Where one cruel confession method would stand as admissible by a court, another would be inadmissible by another court. The text cites several cases in which the admissions were not allowed by a court ruling.

Brown Vs Mississippi, where a man was ultimately tied to a tree and beaten in order to obtain his confession.

Ascroft vs Tenessee where the defendant was denied rest and sleep for over 48 hours while the investigators took their rest breaks.

Spano Vs New York where a defendant was convinced his friend would lose his job if he did not confess.

Escobedo Vs Illinois where the defendant was denied his attorney, even though the attorney was present at the station.

These are some cases which led to the Miranda Vs Arizona landmark supreme court case. This is a case in which even today is still being challenged through other cases. Ultimately the case created safeguards to ensure that all defendants have their constitutional and personal rights protected. In order for an admission to be admissible to the court, there are four points which must be established.

Was the statement voluntary?

Was the miranda warning given at arrest?

Was there a waiver signed by the suspect?

Was the waiver intelligent