Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on The Erosion of Miranda v. Arizona. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page paper which discusses the controversial Supreme Court decision and comments on the erosion of the rule, discussing case law exceptions and their rationale by the high court. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TG15_TGmirvariz.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, but its roots go much deeper into the U.S. judiciary landscape. Abuses in the American criminal justice system have existed since its inception,
and the Supreme Court has tried to eliminate them through case law dating back to the 1880s (Skene, 1991). In 1963, the Gideon v. Wainwright decision granted a suspect
the right to legal representation in all criminal trials even if an attorney could not be afforded (Skene, 1991). The only problem was that most cases are resolved before
appearing before a judge. Therefore, the judicial system subsequently shifted focus "from the courtroom to the police station" (Skene, 1991, p.
1546). The stage had been legally set for Miranda v. Arizona, a case involving Ernesto Miranda, then an impoverished 23-year-old man possessing only a ninth-grade education who was accused
of the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman (Skene, 1991). Miranda had been positively identified by the woman and subjected to what all described as a routine interrogation
(Skene, 1991). However, Mirandas lawyer submitted the argument that before the interrogation began, his client should have been informed of his right to remain silent until he had secured
legal counsel (Skene, 1991). Citing the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that an individual cannot be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself" (Quoted in Skene, 1991, p. 1546). While this had been historically applied to such procedures as issuing subpoenas, the court stated that such protection was also applicable to
police interrogations as well (Skene, 1991). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and in a 5-4 ruling on June 12, 1966, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion, which
...