Miranda Lambert

The Miranda Rights state that anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questioned: (1) they have the right to remain silent, meaning that they do not have to say anything; (2) anything they say can and will be used against them in court; (3) they have the right to a lawyer; and (4) if they cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for them. Underage minors should always have legal representation when being interrogated for an alleged crime because they're not always…

against a defendant at trial is only admissible if the defendant has been informed of his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to consult with an attorney. This Supreme Court decision was brought about by the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who provided a confession to police without being informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. The Arizona State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that because he had not…

The question here is whether Bodie is under arrest or it is a non-custodial interrogation. Interrogation is a term that refers to the police questioning you in the context of a criminal investigation. So a custodial interrogation would be what occurs after the person has been arrested on the suspicion of a crime. On the other hand, an interrogation may occur because a person is being suspected of participating in or in some way involved in a crime, but the police need more information in order…

Definitions 1. Plain view is a legal term that describes the ready visibility of objects that might be seized as evidence during a search by police in the absence of a search warrant specifying the seizure of those objects. To lawfully seize evidence in plain view, officers must have a legal right to be in the viewing area and must have cause to believe that the evidence is somehow associated with criminal activity pg. 205 2. Terry Stop is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable…

In the court case Garrity Vs New Jersey the officer on trial was made to incriminate himself by being forced to testify. This officer was later convicted on his testimony. The supreme court hailed that the officers answers could not be used against him in his criminal trial because the fifth amendment forbid a coerced confession. Today the Garrity rule states if an officer is compelled to provide self incriminating statements information or statements such statements can not be used in a…

for the exclusionary rule, as they allow for illegal evidence in those circumstances to be used in a trial. Miranda rights have not been enforced as strongly by the Burger Court as they had with the Warren Court, although they are still an important part of police procedures and required for investigation. The court has been divided on issues concerning double investigations, unsure if Miranda Rights still apply in those situations. The reasons for these changes are because of the conservative…

The U.S. Supreme Court has made decisions to allow police officers to use deception during custodial interviews of suspects per case law Frazier v. Cupp, 1969 and Oregon v. Mathias on, 1977. Supportive decisions of deception has been made also in the State Court level per State v. Nightingale, 2012. Deception during investigations does not mean a case to be solved by “whatever means necessary,” as the suspects have their civil rights. However, I do believe the deception and baiting a suspect…

CASE BRIEF Case Name – Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 12 (2013) Facts – Genovevo Salinas, the petitioner, who was not in custody or read Miranda warnings, agreed to go to the police station to answer questions regarding involvement in a murder. When petitioner was asked if ballistic testing would match ammunition casings found at the scene, he remained silent. Petitioner contended that the prosecutors’ use of his silence to indicate guilt violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Procedural History –…

If an officer was to conduct an interrogation while someone was in custody or they cannot leave on their free will and are being detained, and that officer failed to read them their Miranda rights, hence, that evidence will not be admissible in court. Henceforth, the information that the officer obtained is considered illegal and cannot be used as evidence against the person being charged (staff and staff). However, if an officer was to arrive on scene and the suspect started to tell the…

flight hazard which he or she may force. In 1963 a man known as Ernesto Arturo Miranda was captured of charges he actually admited nightfall of interrigation, and was sentenced, and sentenced 20-30 years. Miranda's court apointed lawyer contended taht he was not educated he has a privilege to insight, and his admission was not volontary. The Arizona Incomparable Court ruled upon this case, and announced that Miranda was unconscious of the rights allowed under the fifth amendent's…