Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on CRIMINALS AND LEGAL RIGHTS. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4-page paper discusses the cases Escobedo v Illinois and Miranda v Arizona, which pinpoints suspects' rights to attorneys and against self-incrimination. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: AS43_MTlegacomp.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
to say anything that might incriminate them. Furthermore, we know these suspects have the right to legal counsel. We may assume this was
always the case - but it hasnt been. Before the rulings on Escobedo v Illinois (1964) and Miranda v Arizona (1966), confessions could be "coerced" from those charged and submitted
to trial, while those suspected of crimes were denied a right to any kind of legal counsel. Because of both of these rulings,
police interrogators cant "force" a confession of wrong-doing from a suspect, so long as that suspect is in custody, and so long as that suspect understands he/she doesnt have to
say a word during the interrogation process. Comparative synopsis In 1960, when Danny Escobedo was arrested on suspicion of fatally shooting his
brother, he was told on the way to the station that he had been fingered and might as well "come clean." Upon his arrest, his attorney warned him not to
say anything more (Escobedo v. Illinois, 2010). Escobedo was released, but then arrested a second time 10 days later (Escobedo v. Illinois, 2010). He asked to contact his lawyer, but
was denied (Escobedo v. Illinois, 2010). Escobedo ultimately was convicted of murder, but appealed the conviction, claiming the confession was obtained without his attorney being present (Escobedo v. Illinois, 2010).
Ultimately the Supreme Court agreed, in a vote of 5-4, that Escobedos rights were violated (Escobedo v. Illinois, 2010). Two years later,
Miranda v. Arizona came along, and dealt with how statements made by the defendant during interrogation could be admitted as evidence to trial (Miranda v. Arizona: A Primer, 2010). Because
...