Fifth Amendment: Miranda Warning Protects Citizens From Self-Incrimination - Essay Sample

Introduction

The Fifth Amendment is a safeguard to citizens during criminal procedures to ensure that justice prevails. The Amendment focuses on different issues, and it applies to all levels of government. The discussion herein will focus mainly on the Miranda warning, which protects the suspect from self-incrimination by offering them a chance to remain silent if they have no legal advice or fear information they provide will serve to incriminate them (Kelley et al., 2018). The Miranda warning is derived from the case of Miranda versus Arizona. The United States Supreme Court ruled that statements from a defendant will only be admissible in court if the suspect was made aware of their right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning. Where the lawyer was not present, the suspect waived the right voluntarily.

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

Save 25%

Explain whether the information given by the wife on the night of the incident in her house could be used against her.

The legitimacy of the information provided by a suspect or a witness to a crime is subject to particular standards that justify the quality of the information and if it can be used in a court of law. The reason for this is to uphold justice by verifying that the statement is accurate and also to protect the witness from self-incrimination. The case above is an example of an application of the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The information provided by the wife will be valid if the investigator follows the law and ensures that the Fifth Amendment is adhered to, and the witness or suspect's rights are not violated. The Miranda warning will guide the legitimacy of the statements derived from the wife. The warning is routinely given in the United States by a police officer during interrogation, informing them of their right to silence. The suspect is advised of the possibility that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. The person has a right to a lawyer for advice before they can answer any question. The lack of finances to afford the lawyer does not affect them as one can be provided to guide them through questioning. If they commence answering questions without the presence of a lawyer, they can stop whenever they want. The warning has to be adequate and directly inform the informant of their rights (Holland, 2016). As the informant provides the information or waives any rights in the process, they need to be fully aware, and it has to be voluntarily and with informed consent.

In this case, the wife is interrogated at the house, where the incident happened, and the Miranda warning is read to her conclusively. The wife waives her right to an attorney to advise her through the questioning and proceeds to provide information on the accounts that led to the death of her husband. The information provided by the wife on the night of the incident can be used against her since the legal threshold set out in the Fifth Amendment was met, and the informant was aware of the risks associated with the provision of the information.

Explain whether the information given by the wife at your office could be used against her.

The information provided by the wife in this instance, cannot be used against her in a court because the informant is not aware that the information she provides can be damaging and therefore is not willingly giving information; instead, the interrogator has denied her the right to silence. The failure to inform the informant of their rights despite having offered it in a previous interrogation point to an attempt to gather the information that is incriminating without the knowledge of the informant.

The Miranda warning has certain exceptions of which the case under discussion did not qualify. The law provides certain instances where the officer can obtain information from the suspect without giving the right to silence (Li, 2016). The questioning of a suspect who is believed to be a risk to public safety is exempted from this rule. The suspect could be an imminent danger to the public, and the information obtained could be necessary to save the lives of citizens in which case the right to silence will be revoked. The example of a terrorist with the knowledge of the location of weapons that can be used to cause harm to the public is an accurate one as the police will have the leeway to continue questioning with the focus being saving lives rather than conviction of the offender. However, the admissions provided will still be admissible in a court of law.

The other exception is the jailhouse informant. In this situation, a state agent, for instance, who is not a police officer, is asked to ask questions on behalf of the police. The informant is not aware it is an interrogation and, therefore, will readily present information to the proxy will forward this information to the police. The information derived through the state agent is admissible in court and can be used during the trial.

The Miranda warning does not apply to routine questioning by an officer. The principle is that the officer does not ask in a way that the informant will incriminate themselves, and therefore, any other questions that do not carry that risk are not covered by rights to silence. These questions include the name, residence, date of the birth, profession, among other demographics related items.

The questioning at the office followed the revelations from the autopsy which included a text from the wife that proved the possibility of the wife assaulting the husband and therefore any questions asked could have fit the definitions of interrogation and therefore required the interrogator to disclose the right to silence to the informant and proceed only if the suspect waived the right.

Explain whether you would have needed a search warrant to process the husband's death scene on the night of the incident.

I would not have needed a search warrant to access the scene of the murder and the surrounding to process the scene and find any leads to the cause of death and verify the cause and whether it was a murder. The law provides that a police officer has the right to stop and frisk without probable cause if they have reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

These were the decision of the court following a case of Terry versus Ohio, where a police officer stopped and frisked Terry and his accomplices the following suspicion and found them in possession of a revolver and another gun, therefore, charging them for possession of concealed weapons (Stoughton, 2017). The case of the wife and deceased husband points to an unclear death, and the dead had abrasions on the forehead and cheek, which could have been from an assault and possibly the cause of his death. Therefore, the suspicion of a murder would have arisen, necessitating the processing of the scene for any evidence that could have convicted the perpetrator if the murder was the case.

Are there any other maneuvres you could do in this case? Explain.

The process of interrogation and finding evidence to convict suspects can be tedious considering the laws and the rights of the suspect. The police officer has to balance and ensure that the information is accurate and gathered most lawfully and also respectful to the rights of the suspect. However, there exist alternative ways of deriving information, and those could have been used to get information on death in this case.

The autopsy results point to an altercation between the wife and the husband, and the nature of the injuries lead to the use of a blunt object. This would have driven me to the suspicion of a fight between the two, which was probably loud enough for the neighbors to hear, if any lived around. The next step would have been to seek information from the neighbours on whatever knowledge they have on the incidence and timelines which I would have compared with the wife's testimony and derive crucial information on the activities between the altercation and the death of the husband (Kelly et al., 2016).

The other maneuver I would have employed would have been seeking information from the husband's friend who was contacted. The friend would have had crucial information on whether the husband left the house after the altercation or whether he managed to get to the friend after the text. The friend would also explain any measures taken to meet the deceased once they did not show up. These would have been invaluable in determining the time of death.

Conclusion

The conviction of suspects is a task that is necessary to ensure that law and order are maintained but is also a source of controversy as the need for preservation of rights and the need for conviction clash. However, the task of ensuring that both are preserved is left to the officer. The nation has laws, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments highlight how the officer should approach the situation and manage it while still within the required confines. The above scenario presents an officer who is met with the challenge and discusses the approach taken and whether the moves applied were in contravention of the required standards. The discussion concludes that the law has to be followed and where the difficulty is experienced, the officer has to review the code and seek alternatives that enable them to make a conviction while respecting the right of the citizens.

References

Holland, B. (2016). Teaching Miranda v. Arizona at its 50th Anniversary. Social Education, 80(1), 20-25.

Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (2016). The dynamic nature of the interrogation. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 295.

Kelley, S., Zelle, H., Brogan, L., & Goldstein, N. E. (2018). Review of Research and Recent Case Law on Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Warnings. In Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 77-117). Springer, Cham.

Li, V. (2016). Think You Have the Right: The 50-Year Story of the Miranda Warning. ABAJ, 102, 34.

Stoughton, S. W. (2017). Terry v. Ohio and the (un) forgettable frisk. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 15, 19.