Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Was the Miranda v Arizona Supreme Court case a criminal or a civil law case?

I understand that he was arrested for rape, but after he was tried and found guilty of the crime he was retried due to the fact that he did not know his rights. Going to the Supreme Court, his lawyers argued that there should be a way for him to have known his rights. Was this case a continuation of the criminal trial or was it a civil trial due to the fact that it was arguing his rights were violated?Was the Miranda v Arizona Supreme Court case a criminal or a civil law case?
This was not a separate civil trial, it was the appeal of the criminal conviction. It was a criminal case.





A girl was missing and the police decided Miranda had killed her. They picked him up and drove around with him in the car questioning him, till he said he wanted a lawyer. After he said that they continued to talk about how the family needed to know if she was dead, till he took them to where the body was.





He was taken to trial, and convicted of the murder. On appeal the issue was the violation of the right to an attorney. The appeal went to the US Supreme Court, along with some other cases, less well known, and we ended up with a judicial mandate for the police to inform people that they have certain rights, and a rule that the confession will not be admissible if the cops violate them.





A really really bad guy got a conviction overturned because the cops forgot there is a constitution.





I foresee similar instances as a result of the present administration's refusal to recognize our constitutional rights.Was the Miranda v Arizona Supreme Court case a criminal or a civil law case?
Criminal.


And he was a slimy guy and came to a bad end.
Criminal....


I am not sure of the particular crime...but he was asked if he wanted to make a statement, without his rights being fully explained, and without him acknowledging a full waiver of his rights.


He confessed...His confession was admitted in evidence. The USSC found that they trial court made reversible error in admitting the evidence, and ordered a retrial without the evidence.
You answered your own question. Since the case was based on the violation of his rights and had made it to the Supreme Court it would be a civil trial.
It was a criminal case in which the police, to extract a confession, gave Miranda a dry run of his hanging. He even appeared in court and showed the rope burns to the judge, who was actually amused at the resourcefulness of the police. The argument, incidentally, was that the whole proceeding was tainted by torture. Of course, this was in the 1970s, when America was still a free country, one that was opposed to torture instead of using it as a matter of course.
It was an appeal of the criminal court's verdict.
The case he was incarcerated for was a criminal case. When he sued the state saying his rights were violated, that case was civil.
  • good eyeshadow
  • Where can I find the judicial process/procedure of a civil and criminal case?

    Our teacher gave us some vocabulary words and told us we had to put them in the correct order of how a civil and criminal case would go. We had to made a flow chart out of the words. Some words would be used twice. I just can't find anywhere on the internet where it has the process that takes place in a court... I know it ends in a verdict, but thats all..











    Here are the words:





    Arraignment


    Civil


    Defendant


    Liability


    Subpoena


    Injunction


    Opening STatement


    Complaint


    Acquittal


    Closing Argument


    Discrover


    PLea Bargain


    Tort


    Warrant


    Sentence


    Answer


    Appeal


    Criminal


    Grand Jury


    Verdct


    Venue


    Information


    Diliberation


    Summons


    Bail


    Damages


    Indictment


    Restraining Order


    Booking


    Trial


    and Preliminary Hearing





    NOt all the words have to be used, but I think most of them do, and I have to put each words into either a criminal or civil chart showing the order that a trial goes in....Where can I find the judicial process/procedure of a civil and criminal case?
    http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/crimi鈥?/a>Where can I find the judicial process/procedure of a civil and criminal case?
    go to any college near you that has a law school. then go to their book store and you will find everything you need

    Statute of Limitations on Civil Theft Cases (AZ)?

    Back in April (2008) I went through the horrible ordeal of being wrongfully accused of theft at a store I was working at. I was fired, arrested on the spot and went through 6 months of absolute hell before I got my jury trial and was found innocent by 6 jurors on both counts.





    During this whole 6 month process I received repeated letters from the company's civil lawyer demanding restitution in addition to his fees. I ignored all of these letters. I didn't commit these crimes I wasn't going to pay him and have it look as an admission of guilt.





    Since being found innocent of the criminal charges I have not received any more correspondence from him. If he was smart he wouldn't pursue this any further but I am basically living in fear waiting for him to file civil charges against me. I don't want them to ';OJ'; me and I don't have the financial means to defend myself against this very deep pocketed company.





    I just want to know when the time runs out for them to file against me so I can breath again.Statute of Limitations on Civil Theft Cases (AZ)?
    How horrible! Statutes of Limitations for cases like this are usually around 2 years. I didn't check the AZ law b/c I'm too lazy to google it right now, but search ';Arizona, statute of limitations, tort, conversion'; and that should get you what you need specifically.





    You have a suit for wrongful termination against the company should you choose to pursue it.





    ADDITIONAL: A letter from an attorney does not constitute ';a civil action.'; It is nothing more than a strong arm tactic to get you to give them money for something it has been proven you have not done. Lawyers often send letters like that b/c a lot of people don't know that it isn't official or binding - and it is cheaper than filing in court. If you have not been served with a Complaint (which is an official document notifying you that you have been sued in a court) then you have nothing to worry about. If they do serve you with a Complaint you usually have 20 days to respond or a default judgment will be entered against you. THAT is the only thing that could effect your credit rating. You would have gotten notice of the judgment if that had happened.Statute of Limitations on Civil Theft Cases (AZ)?
    This should fall under injury to personal property. In Arizona the statute of limitations for this is 2 years. See the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 12-542 (sorry, I'm from Tennessee so I don't know how to correctly cite Arizona statutes).
    This Civil action has not gone away unless the retailer asked them to no longer pursue it. They could be planning a law suit or have put a negative in your credit rating. You need to call these people and fix thsi or deal with months more trouble

    Looking for possible civil court cases where an ex won his ';promise ring'; back?

    Ok so鈥?I know there are no traditional rules to promise rings but I think it only right for my ex to give back my promise ring because she was the one who cheated on me 鈥? Anyhow my question I am looking for possible civil court cases where an ex won his ';promise ring'; back from his ex as she was only going to sell it.





    I do have emails from her stating she was going to return it and also a store reciept WITH my name on it stating I was the one who purchased the ring





    She is now trying to sell it online somewhere


    I honestly wouldn鈥檛 care if she had not treated me like crap but she did and now she is going to sell the ring and I find it only fair to bring her through a civil court to have her return the ring if she does not do so willingly





    And as I am a bit of a research noob I was wondering if any of you may be able to help find such cases.





    ThanksLooking for possible civil court cases where an ex won his ';promise ring'; back?
    The only cases published are APPEALATE cases... no small claims and no superior court cases.





    Unlikely there is an appeallate case over a promise ring.





    You should research reimbursement for gifts vs. contractual purchases.Looking for possible civil court cases where an ex won his ';promise ring'; back?
    a gift is a gift.





    you gave it to her, therefor its hers and there are no indian givers
    Sorry but if you gave it to her as a gift then it is hers now and the courts won't force her to give it back. It was a gift point blank and it's not yours anymore. Sorry
    Hi, notice the people who answer ';a gift is a gift'; are all women.... Sorry, but the law isn't based upon opinion.... Judges and Juries don't seem to care about it at least....





    Though, there are remarkably few cases on things such as ';promise rights.'; My legal research overflowed with things about ';jewelry in contemplation of marriage'; and other such things. Sorry ladies, but then it actually favors the person who gave the gift.... At least, that's in my state. I don't know where you're from. The reason this is material is that law varies from state to state (assuming you're in the U.S.).





    The law isn't about the saying, ';There are no 'Indian givers''; The law is generally about preventing unjust enrichment, ';there is no such thing as a free lunch.'; ';Basically, she didn't do anything for the ring...'; or so it is supposed.





    However, I'd like to caution you that because it is a ';promise ring'; you have a lesser chance of getting it back. If it were an engagement ring, it could easily be yours (in Ohio). However, because it was (presumed) not in contemplation of marriage, she might have a good shot at keeping it.





    Further, let's not forget the economics of it. How valuable is this thing? Will it cover the costs of the lawyer you'll need to get it back? If you stop and think about it, even if you win, you loose in most lawsuits, because attorney's fees are rarely awarded.





    We had a client who got his engagement ring back last week.... engagement... not promise.... and we're talking about a diamond ring here...





    In general though, be careful of letting your feelings run away with you when you give someone anything.... People love to stomp on your heart ... after you've paid.
    How long ago did you give it to her?


    What state do you live in?





    Look up your state's Statute of Limitations on Google (example: Statute of Limitations California). Depending on how long ago it was, you probably still have a right to getting it back.





    Good luck to you.





    You can also print out records of your purchase for evidence. It just depends on how hard you are willing (and able) to fight for it.


    P.S. Daniel has a great idea.

    Has michael crowes civil case been setteled and how is he doing today?

    um can you pick my answer for best answer and tell me who is he i am just wondering

    What is the reponsibility of a juror in a civil case?

    Pay attention to the trial; remember the facts; weigh the facts; arrive at an intelligent, rational and fair decision; vote when the rest of the other jurors vote. And don't be a distraction. The judge may instruct the jury, so listen to him/her also.What is the reponsibility of a juror in a civil case?
    The Judge will explain what your responsibilities are... You won't find it here or anywhere else except in the court room.What is the reponsibility of a juror in a civil case?
    Jurors are the ';fact finders'; at the trial. This means you decide what the ';factual'; issues are (did person A do X to person B). All the ';legal'; questions are to be decided by the Judge in the case (what law applies to the case, is this case being tried in the correct venue, etc.). The process goes that at trial, the attornies put on their cases, and from that the Jury decide what the facts of the case really are. The judge will instruct the jury on what law will apply for them to reach a verdict. For example the jury might receive an instruction from the judge that ';If you find that A did X to B, then A is guilty of the crime of Z';. The jury then looks at the facts and if they find that A did X the return a verdict saying that A is guilty of the crime of Z. At a trial there are often many many instructions given to the Jury on how to reach their verdict and it can be quite confusing some times. The important thing to remember is to be objective as you possibly can, and leave your pre-conceived ideas at the door. You are not supposed to know anything that was not presented to you in court.

    In case of a civil war, what side will the US military take?

    Considering half of our military is white and half is minorities.





    Would it split 50/50?In case of a civil war, what side will the US military take?
    Civil war doesn't mean racism there Lassie,it means left verses right.I don't think it will involve slavery just murder in the hundreds of thousands to no avail.Containment for prisoners and swift executions on both sides.The thought of a Civil war in the US is horrifying to say the least. There will be a whole bunch of politicians hanging from light post and in the center of town. As for the Military they will take the side that has their respective views.What a great movie this would make .Just think all the couch potatoes could watch their cushy surroundings being destroyed in real time. They love reality shows ,yet they would find reality bites when its real!In case of a civil war, what side will the US military take?
    They would side with the government. Their leadership is the elected citizenry, not Hank that sits outside of the laundromat talking **** about rebellions. It is a professional army that instills hierarchy and the top of that hierarchy is the elected citizen who is established as the commander-in-chief.





    Of course, we are not immune to a civil war but even in the only civil war in our history the militaries of both sides took orders from a elected official who was a citizen. I don't see a leader to emerge from the opposition who would want civil war let alone be able to lead any segment of the military to war against America.
    The Federal government would be in control of the Federal troops. During the Civil War, half of the states had seceded and no longer called themselves part of the United States. They had formed a new nation. The only way the military could split is if a new nation was formed, then they could choose. But whoever had the best weapons would win. I think in the modern era, the Federals would have a huge advantage.
    They would probably take their home town's location in the country into consideration just like they did before. Most did not go over to the other side during the last civil war because of consideration for family and friends. I doubt it would be 50/50 but I don't think there would be one over politics in general as most people are content to go vote in the next election and a good many just follow the crowd.
    Minorities don't matter. Americans against Americans would be the sides. Pretty much those for Socialism is one side, and any other disapproving or having any other opinions against the agenda would be the other.





    Personally, if I were in the military, I'd have a very hard time committing genocide against my own people-- my own kind--- my own family, brothers and sisters alike.





    I fought for these people, provided the care and securing of these people, so that they could go on with their lives in peace and have the freedoms and rights that still exist under the justification of the U.S. Constitution.





    I find it very hard for the U.S. military to follow an order that clearly fights the people that have exploited the government for who they are-- a false, lying, corrupt government.





    Each individual took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, by carrying out the unlawful orders of President Obama and his top officials, they too would be fraudulent under the document of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the military CANNOT--- (MEANING IT DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT) to deploy within the country for combatant purposes. However the, ';Patriot Act II'; eliminates line #10, allowing for such a role.





    For once, I can finally say I'm glad I'm no longer in the military, but I pray for those individuals everyday. And I still, and always will support them, regardless of whom they side with.





    With that being said, when it's all said and done, those trying to kill me will definitely meet resistance!





    I'm on the U.S. Citizens side to take back the country from an unjust government!





    --Rob USMC
    ';In case'; ? I'm really hoping this isn't something we're going to be preparing for. I'm multiracial, and so are my children, so we'd go to Canada, or somewhere else. If this country gets into a race war it won't just be Americans fighting. You think other countries are going to sit idly by?








    seriously doubt it
    The U.S. military, in all it's forms, works for and answer directly to, the Commander in Chief - President Obama. What race they are makes no difference - they can only take the side of the U.S. government. Anything else is desertion and possibly treason - still punishable by hanging, I believe.
    Well the majority of the military are republicans ! Does that help , they also took an oath to uphold the Constitution !





    We have another civil war in this nation it isn't going to be about north and south , or race ! It will be about taking back the control of our nation !
    Well the people in our armed forces actaully stand by the oath they took they would be against the government. But I think we should consider all people that took the oath of enlistment as the weirmarch. They will carry out any order against the American people no matter how horrible, how unconstitutional and no matter how many millions they have to kill and will do so without question no matter their personal convictions. I hope I pissed off a few people in the services not because what I say about them but that I would see them doing what the SS did. And I know I'm invoking Godwin's law. What's your point?





    There are very few true oath keepers around anymore and those that do exist are viewed as potential terrorists by the DHS.





    We have a very simple way of looking at all military and police who would break their own to the constitution...
    It will depend on the political situation, its related to the strength of Working Class.During Revolutions Armies are split along Class lines.Most Sergeants , Corporals and soldiers take the side of Proletariat.But I repeats , it depends on the political situation.
    It should depend upon Constitutional justification, of course, but never mind that. I'm almost certain that this requirement would be all but ignored in a really, crazy-arsed, rebellion of crack shot rednecks against, say, sensible city dwellers- what a script for a Hollywood movie.
    Whatever side that the president takes, that would be the side that the military takes, although soldiers can just go a-wall, the Military would stay with the commander and chief.
    Liar! Mostly white





    http://www.armyg1.army.mil/HR/docs/demog鈥?/a>


    http://www.armyg1.army.mil/HR/docs/demog鈥?/a>


    http://www.armyg1.army.mil/HR/docs/demog鈥?/a>
    Where did you get that figure? Besides race doen't matter unless you perceive a race war. The military will do as everyone else in a all out civil war. Some will be on one side some on the other.
    The US Military is under the command of the President. Anyone in the US military who turns against their commander and fights against the US government is guilty of Treason.
    It will be probably be Right vs left.. THis song basically describes what it would bE LIke..


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIze15H7X鈥?/a>
    Hm. You assume its based on race. I think that the military could do their own thing and dominate everyone. Really, think of it...State Police vs. Army, Army will destroy.
    If you define the sides based on race, they would probably split along race. But that question is so theoretical and far removed from present day reality, that it just can't be answered.
    They will take the side of the constitution. The american people will be liberated.
    The majority of the military has always been Republicans, liberals run to the borders when there's a war.
    In a civil war, the military protects the incumbent government. That's what they've been sworn into.
    ';they also took an oath to uphold the Constitution !';





    Why didn't they revolt when Bush tried to destroy the Constitution over the past 8 years?
    yea gee race, you wouldn't think a civil war of that kind wouldn't be based on beliefs and views at all huh.... nice to know that you a fairly stereotypical!
    I don't believe that we will have another Civil War but I do see the possibility of us having to defend our homes and families because of political unrest.
    It wouldn't be a split based on race, it would be based on conservative vs liberal ideology, Red states vs. Blue states.
    None, the US military is prohibited from deploying inside the United States.
    Chances are they would teach the people who wanted to learn how to take care of themselves.





    Good luck. The rest get a free train ride.
    Of course. It's all based on race. Brilliant.
    that would be a race war, if we were to have a civil war it would be red states vs. blue states not black and white
    The Pentagon would seize the opportunity to stage a coup d'etat and take power for themselves.





    /Both sides in the civil war would lose.
    Whichever side the President tells them to be on.
  • good eyeshadow
  •