Miranda v. Arizona

Assignment 1
Miranda v. Arizona
The Miranda V. Arizona is a legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court established the
Miranda rights which mandates that detained criminal suspects must be fully informed of
their constitutional rights to remain silent, their right to an attorney and against self-
incrimination prior to police questioning. The law enforcement officer is compelled to
inform the criminal suspect about these rights by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. The case began in 1936 with the arrest of Ernesto Miranda, a resident of
Phoenix. He was arrested due to circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and
rape of an eighteen-year-old women. He was questioned by the law enforcement officers
without being informed of his rights to remain silent, of his rights to an attorney, or of the
fact that any of his statements could be used against him in a court of law. Following a
lengthy interrogation, Miranda confessed to the charges made against him and signed a
statement that said that his confessions were made knowing and voluntarily. At trial, the
prosecutor presented Miranda’s written confession to the jury as evidence. His lawyer, Alvin
Moore objected on the grounds that the confession was not truly voluntary and thus should
be excluded. His objection was overruled and based on his confession and other evidence,
Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20-30 years of
imprisonment on each count. Later, Moore filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court,
claiming that Miranda was not explained his rights before interrogation and so his
confessions were not truly voluntary and thus should not have been part of the court
proceedings. Following his appeal, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Miranda’s
favour and overturned his convictions, remanding his case for retrial.
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison was a U.S. Supreme Court Case that established the principle of judicial
review in the United States which gave the American Court of law the power to take down
any laws or statutes that they find to be violating the Constitution of the United States.
Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adam in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson
took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which
allowed them to create new courts, appoint judges and gave the president more control
over the appointment of judges. The act was an attempt by the Congress to maintain the
party’s control of the judiciary by appointing Congress judges in the newly created positions.
Adams used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The
appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their
commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State. William Marbury had been appointed
Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but he did not receive his commission before
Jefferson became president. After coming to office, Jefferson directed James Madison, the
State of Secretary to withhold the commission because in his opinion the commissions were
void as they were not delivered before Adams left office. Marbury petitioned the Supreme
Court to issue a Writ of mandamus compelling James Madison to deliver the commission.
The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not
order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission. Instead, the Court pointed out that the
provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the
Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original
jurisdiction beyond what was originally set down in the U.S Constitution. The Chief of Justice
John Marshall argued that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to solve the issue, but
concluded that the Court could not issue it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with
the Constitution. Marshall pointed out that the Judiciary Act exceeded the original
jurisdiction given to the courts in the constitution. Congress did not have power to modify
the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the
Constitution before the laws and hence declared the act of congress as invalid. Marshall
thus established the principle of judicial review, which gave the Supreme Court the power to
declare a law unconstitutional that they find to violate the Constitution.

Miranda v. Arizona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miranda v. Arizona

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miranda v. Arizona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 1

You might also like