Analyzing Miranda vs Arizona - Essay Example

The jury found Miranda guilty of the kidnapping and rape charges, and a sentence of 20 to 30 years on each count was imposed on Miranda. Later, Miranda made an appeal to the Supreme Court of Arizona, which held that the constitutional rights of Miranda had not been violated by the police, at the time of procuring the confession. In this manner, the Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the decision of the lower court (MIRANDA V. ARIZONA: AN OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS).

 In this case, the Supreme Court examined the statements of the police officers and the confession obtained from Miranda. It held that the police officers had failed to intimate Miranda that he had a right to counsel. It was also found that the police had not given any opportunity to Miranda to exercise his right to counsel during the questioning. The Court stated that the police had failed to inform Miranda of his legitimate right to not to be compelled to incriminate himself during the interrogation (Miranda v Arizona, 1966).

Thus, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of the fulfillment of these requirements, the statements procured from Miranda were inadmissible as evidence. The police should have followed the legal procedures while obtaining evidence from Miranda if it was to be admissible in court. The Supreme Court held that the typed statement from Miranda that he had full knowledge of his constitutional rights, did not waive his constitutional rights (Case Brief Of Miranda Vs. Arizona 1966).

 In addition, the Supreme Court during its ruling emphasized that the process of interrogation, by its very nature, was always intimidating. This can be offset by reading suspects their rights, before the commencement of interrogation. The police officer must read out these rights to the suspect before the interrogation. However, there is no need for a police officer to read these rights to a suspect while arresting the latter (Case Brief Of Miranda Vs. Arizona 1966).

          Miranda approached the US Supreme Court, which held that the statement of the accused obtained during custodial interrogation was inadmissible. The Court held that the prosecution could not present this statement as evidence, until and unless it could establish that such evidence had been obtained while implementing procedural safeguards that secured the privilege of the accused against self – incrimination.

 Moreover, it was stated by the US Supreme Court that the in–custody interrogation was psychologically oriented and therefore an unconstitutional inquisition did not require the presence of physical intimidation or torture. As such, the police had to follow the legal requirements, such as providing warnings to suspects and intimating them of their right to remain silent, and the right to have a counsel present during interrogations (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).