Miranda v. Arizona. The Evolution of the Miranda Decision, citizens’ rights

Miranda v. Arizona. The Evolution of the Miranda Decision, Miranda.  One of the fundamental drives towards the implementation of the United States Constitution is the need to protect all citizens’ rights. It was echoed in the 1966’s Miranda versus Arizona Supreme Court ruling, where it was ruled that suspects have a right to remain silent and be represented by an attorney (Siegel&Worrall, 2016). The privilege would ensure that citizens avoid self-incrimination. This essay focuses on another case built on the ruling. Looking closely, it is disclosed that clarity is required in interpretation of constitutional rights because it leads to justice.

Miranda v. Arizona. The Evolution of the Miranda Decision vs. appeal. Miranda

Miranda. The 1980 case of was built on Miranda versus Arizona case (Ryan, 2016). The defendant, McCarthy, had been arrested for using intoxicants while driving. The police handling the case, Trooper C.J Williams, proceeded to interrogate the defendant without mentioning that he had the right to remain silent and use the services of an attorney. Based on the information he provided, McCarty was charged with the operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Under Ohio law, the crime was punishable by fine or 6 months imprisonment.

Miranda v. Arizona. The Evolution of the Miranda Decision appeal. Miranda

During the appeal, the defendant contested that the statements he made during interrogation could not be used to incriminate him. It was argued that he had not been informed of his constitutional rights (Ryan, 2016). The Franklin court of appeals ruled that Miranda rule not apply to misdemeanors. Further, the supreme court of Ohio dismissed the appeal on the basis that the defendant did not present sufficient constitutional question. The district court for the southern district of Ohio also dismissed it. However, the ruling was reversed by the United States court of appeals sixth circuit. It was determined that Miranda warnings must be offered to people accused of misdemeanor traffic offenses before interrogation.

The Evolution of the Miranda Decision,  McCarty pre-arrest statements. Miranda

Remarkably, the court of appeal did not have clear treatment of the McCarty pre-arrest statements. It was opined that whereas the defendant was not informed of his rights, some of his statements could still be used against him in the courts. As Ryan (2016) explains, the defendant was released based on the fact that some of the statements used to convict him were inadmissible. Given this, the police may argue that a suspect can still be arrested and convicted even when their rights are violated. As Siegel and Worrall (2016) assert, the conclusions did not have the simplicity and clarity needed in a just court. In any case, chances of making incriminating statements when under the influence of drugs or alcohol are higher. McCarty may not have been aware of the seriousness of his statements at the time of his arrest and interrogation.

Miranda v. Arizona. The Evolution of the Miranda Decision.

Nonetheless, the argument that Miranda case by Franklin court of appeals is inapplicable in misdemeanor case was rightly dismissed. Kamisar (2017) indicates that the police officers are often unaware of the nature of a case before an arrest. An interrogation can indeed lead to discoveries about other serious offenses committed by the suspect. It is hence vital to inform every citizen about their rights regardless of the severity of the case.

Indeed, justice is achieved when the constitutional rights are interpreted with simplicity in mind. In Berkemer versus McCarty, different interpretations of Miranda versus Arizona case led to several appeals and lack of clarity. While the defendant had the right to remain silent and involve a lawyer, some of the statements made during interrogation were still admissible. Allow us to tackle all your assignments.

Miranda v. Arizona. The Evolution of the Miranda Decision [References]

Kamisar, Y. (2017). The Miranda case fifty years later. Boston University Law Review, 97, 1293.

Ryan, M. J. (2016). Miranda’s truth: The importance of adversarial testing and dignity in confession law. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 43, 413.

Siegel, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2016). Introduction to criminal justice, (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning