Miranda Warning, How it changed Police Interrogation Term Paper

Miranda Warning, How it changed Police Interrogation - Term Paper ExampleThe maiden major(ip) change in guard examen - that is, from following the voluntariness test - occurred in state jurisprudence. In 1966 the join States Supreme Court decided the case of Miranda. The Miranda finding has been the mirror for modern application of the Fifth Amendments privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in both federal and state criminal cases. Ernesto Miranda was convicted on charges of rape and abduct after providing police with a signed confession. Mirandas questioning by police lasted 2 hours and was conducted in an interrogation room without the aid of a lawyer. The three other defendants charged with the crimes experienced similar interrogation situations (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 intoxicate Vignera v. New York California v. Stewart and Westover v. U.S., as cited in Oberlander & Goldstein, 2001). The Miranda Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, believed a umbrageous au tomatically confronted a compulsory situation (inherent pressure) when placed in a police interrogation environment. The Supreme Court believed there had been widespread abuse throughout the nation by law enforcement personnel, and thereby, concluded that without proper safeguards for the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime the inherently compelling pressures leave behind work to undermine the individuals will to resist and will compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely (Dunham , 2008 p. 540). Essentially, the Miranda decision established a new approach to the admissibility of suspects confessions by rejecting a judicial case-by-case determination of whether a confession was voluntarily given. The Court ruled that... The Miranda decision established a new approach to the admissibility of suspects confessions by rejecting a judicial case-by-case determination of whether a confession was voluntarily given. The Court ruled that any statement resulting from the interrogation of a suspect would be presumed involuntary and thus, inadmissible unless the police first provided the suspect with four warnings. Widely known as the Miranda warnings, these standards first state that the suspect has the right to remain silent. Second, any statements made by the suspect can be used as evidence against him or her. Third, the suspect has the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. Finally, an attorney will be appointed if the suspect cannot afford counsel. In addition, the court determined that an individual may discontinue these Miranda rights if the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Soon after the Miranda decision, police departments developed and instituted Miranda warning statements, the majority of which were patterned after the Courts suggested warnings provided in an appendix to the Miranda decision. These warnings were added to enhance the existing test for admissibility of a confession - the due process voluntariness test.