Essay Example on Ernesto Miranda: When the U.S. Supreme Court Intervened

It was in the case of Ernesto Miranda, where a precedent was established. Even though Arizona Supreme Court pleaded him guilty to sentencing, the United States Supreme Court had to intervene in the same situation. Considering that the police did not give him the guidelines as the law stated on how he is supposed to conduct himself while under custody during questioning as it is always the routine, it stands out in his case. The piece of legislation aiming at protecting him from implicating himself was not delivered to him as it is the number five ruling and also the sixth one where he could have a lawyer to act on his behalf.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Through the way that the police violated his rights gave the court the listening ears and accepted the appeal that was carried forth by Miranda`s lawyer. This became possible after four other cases within the same scope were to be heard at a go. The court hence speculated the part that was played by the place regarding the two amendments finding them on the wrong move. From this, therefore, Miranda got justice as the court gave a ruling on his privilege and coming up with a kind of legislation (precedent) that had to protect those suspects under the interrogation process. It clearly stated that the suspects have the right not to speak, and if whether do talk, his words will be the one to stand out for him or her in the court. In the same instance, it can have a lawyer to speak to or be given one if not in a position to.

Following a case that was once done in North America against a man in the proximity of a house that was broken into a few minutes prior arrest has a lot to be discussed. When he was first approached, he was given several instructions including that, he was not obliged to say anything, and if he did so, anything he transpires would be given as a piece of evidence in court. For this matter is that the man was under a detailed connection, the man decided to zip up, not saying a single word in the entire interrogation process calling upon his lawyer who showed up to settle the matter. It does not mean that the case would have been less severe if he did not speak out, but it showed how the laws stipulated were being adhered to following the rights of the suspects. The lawyer hence stood for him, and they were able to uncover the suspicion.

Considering that the police just used the circumstantial evidence regarding the man being in the surrounding during the search as per Blum (2019), gave out room for a series of questions and investigation holding the man, therefore. It was during the hearing of the case when the judge scrutinized the whole scenario and tried to understand whether the police role during the questioning was in line with all the amendments in particular protection against self-incriminating and the attorney option. When all was confirmed, to the point that he had a disciplined lawyer, the man got justice. He immediately released following that, there was nothing presented as substantial evidence against him as the one who broke into the said house.

Reference

Blum, B. (2019). Evidence Law: Convictions Based on Circumstantial Evidence. The Judges' Book, 3(1), 11. Retrieved from: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=judgesbook