LAW 1: Case Study Analysis of Miranda Rights and Defendant Statements

This case study, focusing on LAW 1, examines the critical issue of Miranda Rights and their implications during police interrogations. It analyzes whether statements made by a defendant in custody are admissible in court if the defendant was not informed of their right to remain silent and their right to legal counsel. The assignment delves into the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, highlighting how these amendments protect the rights of the accused. The case revolves around the scenario where Ernesto Miranda was not aware of his rights during interrogation. The study concludes that the statements made by Miranda are inadmissible because law enforcement failed to inform him of his rights. The assignment emphasizes the absolute nature of these rights, particularly the right to counsel and the right to remain silent, ensuring that any statements made in custody are valid and admissible as evidence in court only if the defendant is fully aware of their rights. The conclusion reinforces the necessity of informing suspects of their rights to ensure compliance with constitutional amendments.

Running head: LAW
Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Authors Note:

1
LAW
Contents
Issue:................................................................................................................................................2
Rules:...............................................................................................................................................2
Application:.....................................................................................................................................2
Conclusion:......................................................................................................................................3
References:......................................................................................................................................4

2
LAW
Issue:
The issue here is to discuss whether the statement made by a defendant during police
interrogation in the custody can be challenged in case the defendant was not told about his right
to stay silent and the right to speak with his counsellor. It is also to be discussed whether
statements made voluntarily by the defendant during police interrogation is not admissible in the
court of law due if he was not told about his rights to stay silent and speak with a counsellor.
Rules:
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that
any statement made by the defendant in custody can be used as evidence in a court of law in the
country provided the defendant has been told about his rights. These rights include the right to
stay silent and to speak with the counsellor. In case the law enforcement fails to inform the
defendant about his rights while he is in custody then it is a violation of his rights and any
statement taken from the defendant during police interrogation while in custody will not be
assumed to have been taken in unfair circumstances (Short, 2018).
Further Fifth Amendment protects the suspects in a civil cases against the self-discrimination
with the Sixth Amendments allowing the suspects the right to have attorney until unless the
suspects wave the right. Thus, it is clerk that the law of the land allow the suspects and
defendants the right to have counsellor and it can only be waived by the suspects and defendants
themselves (Futó, 2019).
Application:
In this case, it is clear that the Ernesto Miranda was unaware of his rights during police
interrogation and while in custody. Thus, there is no question of waving these rights of staying

3
LAW
silent and speaking with the counsellor before making any statements to the law enforcement.
Since, the law enforcement fails to inform the suspect, i.e. Ernesto Miranda about his rights
hence, statements taken from the suspect during the police interrogation will not be admissible in
the court of law as evidence as the Fourth Amendment clearly states that the statements made by
a defendant in custody will only be valid and admissible as evidence if the defendant is aware of
his rights. Considering the sheer fear that suspects and defendants have during police
interrogation the rights to stay silent and speak with the counsellor is absolute and not negotiable
as per the Fourth Amendment (Henderson, 2018).
Conclusion:
Considering the rights of suspects and defendants as per the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments
to the Constitution of the country it is clear that the statements taken from Ernesto Miranda were
not in conformity with the rules stated in these amendments. Hence, the confession of Ernesto
Miranda cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. The law enforcement should have
informed the suspect / defendant, Ernesto Miranda in this case about his right to speak with
counsellor and right to stay silent in order to ensure that the statements made him in custody can
be used as evidence in a court of law.

4
LAW
References:
Futó, G. (2019). Theories of the Original Meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Politické Vedy, 3(3), 229-246. doi: 10.24040/politickevedy.2019.22.1.229-246
Henderson, S. (2018). Beyond the (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party
Information, Third Parties, and the Rest of Us Too. SSRN Electronic Journal, 7(7), 18-33.
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.922343
Short, B. (2018). A fifth amendment to the intestine's constitution. The Journal Of Cell
Biology, 197(7), 706-706. doi: 10.1083/jcb.1925iti2

5
LAW