Detailed Case Brief: Miranda v. Arizona, Law Assignment Solution

Verified

Added on  2022/08/28

|4
|540
|21
Case Study
AI Summary
This document presents a comprehensive case brief of Miranda v. Arizona, a landmark Supreme Court case. It details the facts of the case, including Miranda's arrest, interrogation, and confession without being informed of his rights. The issue addressed is whether the confession was admissible in court, given the lack of Miranda warnings. The holding establishes the requirement for law enforcement to inform individuals of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights during arrest and interrogation. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Warren, emphasizes the importance of these rights to protect citizens from self-incrimination and ensure the right to counsel. The document also includes concurring and dissenting opinions, providing a nuanced understanding of the legal arguments and the court's decision. Furthermore, the case brief includes the rule and its application, reference to the amendments, and the reasoning behind the court's decision, offering a complete analysis of the case for educational purposes. This case brief is prepared to fulfill the requirements of a law assignment.
Document Page
Running head: CASE STUDY BRIEF
CASE STUDY BRIEF
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
tabler-icon-diamond-filled.svg

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Document Page
1CASE STUDY BRIEF
Full case name
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Heard by
Supreme Court of Arizona
Name of Justice/judge Authoring Opinion
Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan II,
William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas
Facts
Miranda was arrested, interrogated and subsequently made to sign a written confession by
police officials without being informed of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to remain
silent and seek for an attorney, at no cost.
Issue
Is the written confession signed by Miranda without being made aware of his Fifth
and Sixth Amendment rights lawful and admissible at a court of law? Could the trial be based
on such written confession?
Holding
It is the duty of the law enforcement officials to inform a person of his right to remain
silent and to seek legal help at no charge while being arrested or interrogated by the police
officials. This is upheld in order to secure the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of the
citizens of the USA.
Majority Opinion Reasoning
Document Page
2CASE STUDY BRIEF
Rule: A person arrested or in custody has the right to be informed that he has the right
to remain silent and whatever he says shall be used against him. He must also be
informed that he has the right to see an attorney, thereby having the right to remain
silent until his attorney is present throughout the interrogation. Application: As Miranda was arrested, interrogated and made to sign a written
confession without being informed of his right to remain silent and ask for legal help,
therefore, the decision of the court with 5-4 majority overturned Miranda’s
conviction. The Chief Justice pointed at the FBI for complying the Fifth and Sixth
Amendment rights of the persons to be arrested and interrogated.
Concurring Opinion Reasoning
Justice Tom C. Clark gave a part concurrent and part dissenting judgement by stating
that the it should be considered from case to case whether police officials informed the
arrested person of his fifth and sixth amendment rights. It is the court that should help the
accused with a legal counsel. However, the state shall be held responsible with the burden to
inform the person so arrested and interrogated.
Dissenting Opinion Reasoning
The judges with dissenting opinions pointed out that the judges with majority opinion
were overreacting about the coercive interrogation of the law enforcement authority. Justice
John M. Harlan II said that the court has the habit of adding stories to the “temple of
constitutional law”. While, Justice Byron White stated that the holding of the case had no
“factual and textual bases” or previous judgement of the court.
Document Page
3CASE STUDY BRIEF
Reference
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
chevron_up_icon
1 out of 4
circle_padding
hide_on_mobile
zoom_out_icon
[object Object]