The Escobedo and Miranda Laws are landmark court decisions that impact the manner in which law enforcement int
Question Details: What is the relationship between the two?
What was the impact of both decisions in terms of interviews and interrogations of a suspect?
What statute did Congress pass two years after the Miranda ruling?
How did the statute change or affect the Miranda ruling?
Do these laws protect individual rights or do they simply provide a loophole for criminals.
Could someone critic this for me?
Escobedo v. Illinois came first when he filed a case against the State of Illinois because they did not allow him access to an attorney after having been arrested previously on the same charge of murdering his brother-in-law. In the Miranda case, they set the new precedent of the Miranda warning the way we know it today just to make the issue an airtight warning that all persons arrested are entitled to invoke their right to an attorney. They could not go back and have a do over with Escobedo because issue had not been determined to the Miranda extent. Now they gave themselves an out with the Miranda case.
Miranda:
http://www.google.com/search?q=miranda+ruling&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA
Escobedo:
http://www.google.com/search?q=escobedo+ruling&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA
Please repost when you have written your assignment. Someone here will be happy to comment on your thoughts.
These articles will give you a good start on your research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escobedo_v._Illinois
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
Who is he? Full name.
Who are "they" all through this?
Escobedo actually asked for an attorney and was refused. His confession was thrown out.
Miranda ruling was that all suspects must be given their rights in a form that they can understand.
Two years later Congress tried to weaken Miranda in Federal cases.
They protect the innocent and the guilty. No one should talk to the police without a lawyer present because their words will be twisted by the police.
Focus on the details here.
1. Who refused to get an attorney for Escobedo? Who threw out the confession?
2. Can you really "give" someone his rights? Or do you mean that "suspects must be told what their rights are..."
3. What did Congress do in attempting to weaken the Miranda process?
4. Who are "they"? Who are "their"?
Be specific.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_pronuse.html
Use active voice verbs rather than passive.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/passive.htm
just to let you know the escobedo v. illinios case "The Supreme Court overturned Escobedo's conviction and recognized a suspect's right to an attorney during police interrogation." and it wasn't so much about the marianda rights it was more about the due process rights
nxgzvc blxrego gdncxktf hecr emudn szvdoubc vrkj
The relationship between the Escobedo and Miranda Laws is that they are both landmark court decisions that impact the manner in which law enforcement conducts interviews and interrogations of suspects.
The Escobedo decision, made in 1964 by the U.S. Supreme Court, held that once an individual becomes the focus of a criminal investigation and is taken into custody, they have a right to have an attorney present during any subsequent police questioning. This decision emphasized the importance of the right to legal counsel during police interrogations.
The Miranda decision, made in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court, established the now-famous Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. It held that before any custodial interrogation, law enforcement officers must inform the suspect of their constitutional rights. Failure to provide this information can result in the exclusion of any statements obtained as evidence.
In terms of their impact on interviews and interrogations, both decisions serve to protect the rights of suspects. They ensure that individuals are aware of their rights and can make informed decisions during police questioning. These decisions provide safeguards against self-incrimination and protect against coerced confessions.
Two years after the Miranda ruling, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This statute was intended to overrule some aspects of the Miranda decision.
The statute established a procedure for a "voluntary, knowing, and intelligent" waiver of the Miranda rights. It clarified that a statement made by a suspect during custodial interrogation is admissible in court if the prosecution can demonstrate that the suspect understood their rights and voluntarily waived them.
The statute did not change the fundamental right to remain silent or have an attorney present, but it provided a framework for how a voluntary waiver of those rights should be assessed.
In terms of the impact on the Miranda ruling, the statute created more specific guidelines regarding the waiver of rights, but it did not fundamentally alter the protection provided by the Miranda decision.
Regarding whether these laws protect individual rights or provide a loophole for criminals, it is important to note that the intent behind both the Escobedo and Miranda decisions was to safeguard individual rights during police interviews and interrogations. These decisions were made to ensure fair treatment and prevent coercive tactics used by law enforcement. While there may be cases where criminals attempt to exploit these laws, the primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals during the criminal justice process.