I am going to provide a synopsis of the case of Miranda V. Arizona, and also the case of Arizona V. Fulminante. I will provide a comparative synopsis of these two cases, discuss final court rulings and the legal requirements for admissibility of statements and the applicability of those legal requirements to the above mentioned cases.
In the case of Miranda V. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. Police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. Miranda confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged. His written statement also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count. (Landmarkcases, 2009)
The case of Miranda V. Arizona comes down to the fact that the individual, Ernesto Miranda should have been informed of his rights at the time of his confession and because he was not that his confession should have been excluded from the trial. The case moved through the court system when Miranda was convicted in 1965 for kidnapping and rape on the basis of a written confession that was admitted into evidence despite defense objections that Miranda had not been informed of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent during the police interrogation. Then in 1965 as well the Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the conviction stating that Miranda’s rights were not violated at trial by allowing the confession. (Landmarkcases, 2009)
Finally in 1966 the case of Miranda landed at the Supreme Court of the United States, It was then that the Supreme court of the United States reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and held that statements obtained from defendants during interrogations in police-dominated atmosphere without full warning of right to remain silent and right to counsel violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and were inadmissible.
The legal requirement for admissibility of the statements in this case of Miranda V. Arizona was not met, while any suspect is in custody and undergoing a custodial interrogation they must be informed of their rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to not incriminate one’s self and the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel even if the individual cannot afford a lawyer. The statement made by Miranda cannot be considered admissible because Miranda was not informed of these rights prior to his confession, had Miranda been informed he may have requested a lawyer or remained silent.
In the case of Arizona V. Fulminante, the defendant Fulminante was the stepfather to 11 year old Jeanne who was found murdered in Mesa Arizona in the dessert shot twice in September of 1982. Fulminante had reported the young girl missing to the Mesa police department two days before her body was found. Fulminante's statements to police concerning Jeneane's disappearance and his relationship with her contained a number of inconsistencies, and he became a suspect in her killing. When no charges were filed against him, Fulminante left Arizona for New Jersey. Fulminante was later convicted in New Jersey on federal charges of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Fulminante was imprisoned he became friends with another inmate, Anthony Sarivola. Sarivola, a former police officer, had been involved in loan sharking for organized crime, but then became a paid informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While at Ray Brook, he masqueraded as an organized crime figure. After becoming friends with Fulminante, Sarivola heard a rumor that Fulminante was suspected of killing a child in Arizona. Sarivola then raised the subject with Fulminante in several conversations, but Fulminante repeatedly denied any involvement in Jeneane's death. During one conversation, he told Sarivola that Jeneane had been killed by bikers looking for drugs; on another occasion, he said he did not know what had happened. Sarivola passed this information on to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who instructed Sarivola to find out more.
Sarivola said that he knew Fulminante was "starting to get some tough treatment and whatnot" from other inmates because of the rumor. Sarivola offered to protect Fulminante from his fellow inmates, but told him, "`You have to tell me about it,' you know. I mean, in other words, `For me to give you any help.'". Fulminante then admitted to Sarivola that he had driven Jeneane to the desert on his motorcycle, where he choked her, sexually assaulted her, and made her beg for her life, before shooting her twice in the head. (Findlaw, 2010)
Fulminante was tried and convicted of his stepdaughter’s murder when his attorney tried to suppress the confession and the court ruled that it was admissible. He was sentenced to death. Fulminante appealed, arguing, that his confession to Sarivola was the product of coercion and that its admission at trial violated his rights to due process, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After considering the evidence at trial as well as the stipulated facts before the trial court on the motion to suppress, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the confession was coerced, but initially determined that the admission of the confession at trial was harmless error, because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against Fulminante. The Arizona Supreme Court ordered that he be retried without the confession being admissible. The Arizona Supreme Court found a credible threat of physical violence unless Fulminante confessed. In the Arizona Supreme Court's initial opinion, in which it determined that harmless error analysis could be applied to the confession, the court found that the admissible second confession to Donna Sarivola rendered the first confession to Anthony Sarivola cumulative. In a divided opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the state Supreme Court’s finding that Fulminante might have been subjected to violence was sufficient to establish a finding of coercion, and therefore affirmed the reversal. In addition, the Court held that a harmless error analysis should nonetheless be applied to any allegedly coerced confession. In either case, the Court held that a new trial was warranted. (Findlaw, 2010)
References
Landmark cases. (2009). Miranda v arizona . Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/background3.html
Findlaw, . (2010). Arizona v. fulminante, 499 u.s. 279 (1991) . Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=279
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
