Please review the following Supreme Court decision that was passed down this week. Why did the Supreme Court decide to hear this case? What are the implications for Due Process? Were any precedents altered?
Please also notice the format of this Supreme Court decision, so you can replicate the design for your hypothetical assignment.
The supreme court decided to hear this case primarily because it was an interesting "twist" on the concept of Miranda rights. The implications for due process are that for a person having been charged of a crime and read his miranda rights in that instance, he need not hear them again for a separate, unrelated crime once in custody. This alters the due process offered to the convicted. No precedents were altered really, as the decision sat well within the realms of previous rulings.
ReplyDeletethe supreme court heard this case because it presented a problem with the prisoner's miranda rights. he was taken to be interrogated by officers and detectives but was never told his miranda rights. he had the right to refrain from speaking with the officers but because the men did not alert him of this right, he did not know to not speak. this alters the due process clause of the court because he is supposed to have a fair trial and if he is not told his miranda rights, his trial is unfair.
ReplyDeleteThe supreme court heard this case because it is a spin-off of Miranda Rights. However, this time the supreme court stated that the police do not have to read a prisoner there Miranda rights if they are questioning them about an unrelated crime.This case merely clarifies Miranda rights not overthrow old president.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court decided to hear this case because it brought up a new question to the concept of a prisoner's Miranda rights that before seemed vague. The decision alters the due process for a present prisoner. The implications of the clause are that a person must be made aware of his/her rights in the instance of being taken into custody for a crime. If unaware of his/her rights, they are not awarded a fair trial
ReplyDeleteThe supreme court decided to hear this case because a confession could have wrongfully been obtained. Since the man was not read his miranda rights, only told that he could leave when he wanted, his confession should not hold up in court. Even when he did finally leave they made him wait 20 minutes to be taken back to his cell. It seems to me that this interrogation was intentionally drawn out against the will of the defendant and that the Supreme should have dismissed his confession.
ReplyDeleteThe SC choose to hear this because it was a fresh case that made them return to the groundbreaking Miranda rights. The circumstances were sticky, and it almost seemed as if the officers where using him to find out more information is an backhanded manner. He was previously read the Miranda rights, and I highly doubt he forgot them already. The decision did change the due proccess of someone who is already a prisoner to ensure that there would be a fair and happy trial with no extra confusion about when talking was allowed.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court chose to hear this case because it gave them an opportunity to further clarify the ruling handed down in the Miranda verdict. It gives law enforcement officers a little more leeway when interrogating prisoners. It breaks the precedent set in Mathis V. United States tat said that "Miranda warnings must be administered when law enforcement officers remove an inmate from the general prison population and interrogate him regarding criminal conduct that took place outside the jail or prison." The justices are now saying that they do not need to be informed their rights because it is considered routine to question prisoners.
ReplyDeleteThe supreme court heard this case because it was a interesting situation involving the Miranda verdict. This case says that sometimes police don't have to read Miranda rights to the prisoner during interrogation. This new exception is allowed if the person is being interrogated for crimes separate from the crime which they are currently jailed for. This implication gives police more freedom, and this verdict altered the Miranda precedent.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court chose to hear this case because there wer eparts of the Miranda v. Arizona case that were still unclear and in a way it seems like Fields tried to find a loophole or something in the decision so the court had to revise the decision. The due process clause states that a defendent must be made aware of his rights before being arrested so does this apply to this case even though he had already been arrested? It comes into play because the deputies didn't inform him that he could leave the interview, however they did not try to stop him from leaving.In the end though, there were no precedent alterations because the Court ruled that the previous cases stand.
ReplyDeleteThey heard the case because of issues with the prisoner and his Miranda rights being unclear. Due process becomes an issue because the clause says that every person who is accused must know his or her rights. Fields didn't know he could leave the interview, but nothing happened because of his case. There was no change in how the Supreme Court functions. The only thing that changed was the Miranda process itself.
ReplyDeleteThis case was heard because of a discrepancy involving Fields' rights. It is thought that a reasonable person would be aware that they are able to leave the interrogation. Fields was apparently unaware that he had the right to end the questioning and leave the room to return to his cell. After his confession, he was convicted on charges of assaulting a minor. He claimed that he should have been read his Miranda rights, but the Court disagreed, saying that an interrogation where the prisoner is taken from his or her cell does not present the same sudden shock and thus, the Miranda Rights should not be read. No precedents were altered, just a clarification of due process. For what it's worth, I think the Miranda rights should be read whenever a prisoner's freedom is restrained. Interrogation turns into such a cat and mouse game sometimes when due process is involved.
ReplyDeleteThis case was heard because it was an interesting angle for the Supreme Court to hear a case regarding Miranda Rights. Everyone needs to know their rights for their crime. But in this case a person does not need their rights read to them if they are being interrogated for another crime if they are already being interrogating. The Supreme Court set no new precedents and the only thing that was altered was the Miranda Rights process.
ReplyDeleteApparently my comment did not post. Continuing, this case was heard basically because although it was similar to Miranda, it was also slightly different. Instead of the question being if Miranda rights should be given, which was cleared up in Miranda v. Arizona, the question had to do with Due Process and when the Miranda rights need to be given. The court decided that Miranda rights do not to be given during interrogation, which basically means that if they don't give him his Miranda rights while questioning that it is not against Due Process. No precedents were altered; it was just clarification.
ReplyDeleteThis case was heard by the Supreme Court because it provided an opportunity to further clarify the scope of ones Miranda rights. Prisoner interrogation is considered a routine measure and therefore prisoners do not need to be reminded of their rights.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court heard this case because it presented a different perspecective of Fields' Miranda rights. Through the Court's hearing, it was able to narrow down the rights a person has and make clearer their meaning. The due process is effected because having not been made aware of his rights, Fields' trial can be ruled as unfair. No precedents were altered.
ReplyDeleteThe Court heard this case because it had the potential to give a different view of people's Miranda rights. No precedents were altered because being interrogated has always been a part of due process.
ReplyDelete