James wells Wells 1
26 March 2014
In March 1963, a man names Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix Arizona, with the belief that he raped an 18 year old female. He was heavily questioned and interrogated, during this time he had admitted to committing the crime and gave a written statement which he signed; he went as far as to identify the girl that he had raped. He wrote in his statement that he was not threatened to say anything he did not do and he had full knowledge of his legal rights. Although in court, he said to the judge he did not know his rights as they were not stated to him at the time of the arrest; furthermore he did not know he had the right to remain silent and he had no knowledge that he had the right to an attorney.
Also stating that if he knew his rights he would not have answered any questions and would not have done so until he had an attorney.
The plaintiff was denied his rights to remain silent until proven guilty and he had no knowledge of the right to an attorney. While, the defendant states that he had enough legal evidence to lead to conviction or Mr. Miranda. The court is concerned with the fact that the plaintiff did not have his legal rights stated to him which violates his right to the fifth and the fourteenth amendment. This case of Miranda V. Arizona brings about the issue of a criminal or even non criminals rights. A peace officer must in all situations present a detainee with their rights given to them by the government. If not stated the detainee has a chance at pardon from the crime that they...