Opti-Free

Background: A woman identified Ernesto Miranda in a police lineup after she was kidnapped and raped. Miranda was then interrogated for two hours until he admitted to committing the crimes. However, Miranda was never informed by the police officers that he had the sort out to counsel and protection against self-incrimination. After Miranda lost the case and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison, his court-appointed lawyer appealed to the Supreme solicit claiming that Mirandas fifth Amendment rights had been violated.
Constitutional Issue: Does the police utilisation of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
mash Decision: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial question of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the perk against self-incrimination.
Logic: One reason for the Courts finality is that since Miranda was never informed of his rights.



The interrogation was irregular because Miranda was not advised of his right to counsel or his protection against self-incrimination. It is the job of the authorities and its agents to let citizens know their constitutional rights. Since that was not done, the interrogation is considered invalid. some other reason for the Courts decision is that Miranda never waived his Fifth Amendment rights. Since he was not aware of his rights, there is no elan that he could have waived them. No confession could be utilise against him in court because the confession is considered evidence that was obtained in an unlawful way.If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .