Research Paper on:
Miranda Case and its Impact

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
landmark decision issued in 1966, the court mandated that the accused has the right to remain silent and that prosecutors are not able to use statements made by defendants while  in police custody, unless the police had already advised the suspect of his or her rights (2000). The terminology is common knowledge today, especially if one watches courtroom or police  dramas on television or in film. This case comes up all the time. It is generally referred to as the Miranda Rights (2000). Although Miranda is generally accepted as  a valid precedent, and few police officers or district attorneys challenge it, there are times when the validity of the case comes up in court. Some have in fact challenged  the precedent. In 1999, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that provided precedence in federal cases to a 1968 federal law regarding voluntary confessions over the 1966  Miranda case (Capra, 2000). The 1968 law, passed by Congress in an attempt to get around Miranda, states that federal prosecutors can use statements gathered without informing suspects of  their rights (2000). They can do this as long as the statements are provided voluntarily (2000). Such a law has seldom been invoked and the decision has been seriously criticized  for weakening the rights of the defendants (2000). In June of 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1966 ruling had precedence over the 1968 federal law as the  ruling was based on the suspects constitutional rights (2000). It is interesting to note that the police are not legally obligated to Mirandize a suspect, but it is in  their best interests to do so (Capra, 2000). Then, the suspect cannot claim that he or she did not know their rights, and try and get confessions declared inadmissible