Miranda vs. Arizona Essay Example

to counsel. However, there was still uncertainty as to whether police officers were responsible for informing defendants about these rights and when they should do so during criminal proceedings. In 1965, Miranda's case was accepted by the Supreme Court as a way of addressing such doubts.

Simultaneously, the Court granted a hearing to three comparable cases, namely Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. Consequently, the Court consolidated all four cases.

The decision known as Miranda was rendered in 1966 and was the first among the four cases considered by the Court. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Court ruled that unless prosecutors proved the use of effective procedural safeguards to protect the privilege against self-incrimination, they couldn't use statements obtained from custodial interrogation of defendants. The Court highlighted that in-custody interrogation in modern times is focused more on psychology than physical means and that an unconstitutional investigation could take many forms, not just physical coercion (How to brief 2006).

The Court provided clear guidelines for police warnings given to suspects, which include informing them of their rights to remain silent and to have legal counsel present during questioning (How to brief 2006). Source: How to brief a case (2006). Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.The URL for the research briefing page can be found at

edu/research/brief.html

.