Miranda V. Arizona (Miranda Warning)
The decision of the Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona addresses four different cases that involve custodial interrogations. In each of the four cases, the defendant is being questioned by the detectives, prosecuting attorney and police officers in a private room. In 1963, March 13, Ernesto Miranda was put under custody in his home, and was, therefore, taken to the police station and questioned regarding the rape and kidnapping cases. After interrogating Miranda for two hours, the police obtained a written confession from him. In his confessions, Miranda has admitted that he was the one who committed the crimes (Vander & Kamisar, 2013). Notably, the written confession was to be used as evidence at trial, notwithstanding the attorneys defense. In this case, the defendant was not given full and sufficient warning of their rights before the process of interrogations began. Further, the police officers admitted not advising Miranda of his rights, which was to have an attorney present when facing the interrogations.
According to the Jury, Miranda was guilty. After the appeal, Arizonas Supreme Court confirmed that Mirandas constitutional rights were not violated in any way, since he never requested for counsel. Miranda was convicted for 20 to 30 years in prison (Vander & Kamisar, 2013). He also appealed to the supreme courts with claims that the police had obtained his confessions unconstitutionally. For the purpose of safeguarding this right, the court ruled that before any questioning, it is important that suspects are informed of their rights to remain silent. According to the court, they should be made aware that anything they say can be used against them in the court. Thus, they are entitled to the right of presence of an attorney, and, in any case, they are not able to afford an attorney, and they desire to have one, one will be appointed before questioning (Vander & Kamisar, 2013).
From my viewpoint, I agree with the courts decision that Miranda was entitled to have an attorney when undertaking the interrogations. Besides, the police violated Mirandas rights, despite the fact that he is unknowledgeable of whether having an attorney general was essential before his questioning. Thus, in this case, the court ruling was valid. The case above has changed the rule of evidence. It would be correct to state that interrogations are essential but the manner under which the process is carried out matters. Thus, even though Miranda was guilty, he was entitled to have an attorney before his questioning.
Roe v. Wade (Abortion)
In the early 1970s, the important women issue in the United States was campaigning for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Essentially, the ERA legislation required women to have the same rights as men. However, due to the conservative opposition, this bill never passed through the Congress. The case of abortion rates commenced in 1969 when a lady named Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant (Hull & Hoffer, 2010). McCorvey was a single woman who lived in the State of Texas and was in a need of procuring an abortion. During that time, it was illegal to have an abortion according to the Texas state law. However, the state advised her to travel to another country, where abortion was legal. Unfortunately, McCorvey could not afford to go to different countries to have the abortion there. For this reason, McCorvey made a decision to sue the state of Texas, arguing that her constitutional rights were being violated.
The Texas state court ruled for McCorvey. However, it was not a strong judgment to change the idea of arresting the doctors who participated in procuring abortions in Texas, since the constitution part that dealt with privacy rights indirectly could not be identified. Therefore, McCorvey and her lawyer decided to forward the matter to the Supreme Court. From the Supreme Court, McCorvey was given a generic name Jane Roe to protect the privacy rights she was fighting for purposely. In 1972, the Supreme Court heard Roe v. Wade claims. Fortunately, the decision was made later, after in 1973, and Roe was favoured in by the Supreme Court ruling (Hull & Hoffer, 2010). According to the court, a mother deserves constitutional rights to abortion without being considered to have committed an offense under the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment offers the rights to privacy to American and their personal decisions. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court concluded that it is essential to balance abortion rights, depending on the childs life and the health of the mother. For this reason, the state has all the necessary rights to get involved in case an abortion seems to cause death or harm to the mother, or perhaps if the child had developed for a particular time.
The Supreme Court claimed that a womans right to abortion is considered legal until the time when the child reaches the viability. This means that if medical records show that the child can successfully live outside the mother without any medical assistance whatsoever, the state has rights to interfere with the mothers rights to abortion (Higgins & Dellapenna, 2013). In summary, I agree with the Supreme Courts decision for McCorvey right to have the procedure done. Procuring an abortion is a decision that a woman has to make on her own. Therefore, if the medical results show that the pregnancy proves to cause any harm to the mother, the person can rightfully procure the process of abortion. The case has changed the rule of evidence in a different ways. It is evident that abortion is a crime. However, in any case, where danger is sensed primarily to the mothers or kids health, the process is considered legal.
Spinelli V. United States (Search & Seizure)
William Spinelli, the defendant, was convicted for traveling to Missouri, St. Louis with the intentions of carrying out gambling activities, which were prohibited by the state of Missouri law. The District Court rejected to repress the evidence obtained through searching an apartment. For this reason, the U.S. Supreme Court made the decision to reverse and remand the case. In his appeal, Spinelli challenged the search warrant obtained by the FBI, so as to obtain the evidence (Bloom, 2003). The warrant application was based on the four key parts. First, the FBI tracked Spinelli for five days, and for four days, Spinelli had moved from Illinois to a different apartment in Missouri. In the second part, two phone numbers were identified with a particular apartment. Thirdly, government officials affirmed that Spinelli was a known bookie. In the last part, from a reliable source, informant has informed the FBI that Spinelli was a bookie and that he had two phone numbers that were associated with one apartment in Missouri. Constitutionally, the defendant challenged the FBI search warrant, which unveiled the evidence that was needed for his conviction (Stephens & Glenn, 2006). On certiorari, the court realized the warrant application was not adequate, since it did not set forward the underlying circumstances that would allow the magistrate to independently judge the validity of the information that was provided by the informant. Further, the affidavit had no full details of providing a probable cause to support the reasons for issuing the search warrant.
According to the courts ruling, the judgment was reversed by the court of appeal. Therefore, the court remanded the case to the court of appeal for the further proceedings. I agree with courts decision to remand the case due to lack of specific evidence. The information provided by the informant was inadequate. Overall, the case has changed the rule of proof in numerous ways. Every individual has the right to be secure in the houses, persons, effects and papers as well. Besides, individuals have rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and, thus, these rights should not be violated, and no warrants should be issued, unless upon probable cause, with the support of affirmation and oath describing the exact place to be searched and the things or persons to be seized.