arizona: In American History I have to write an essay about at least 3 arguments for Arizona in the court case Miranda v. Arizona. I have these: 1) It wasn't the state's job to tell Miranda his rights. 2)He was arrested before, he should've known his rights during that case. 3)All Americans should know their rights.|||Hello there, The Miranda case really focuses on the reach of the 5th Amendment. Just when under the 5th does a person have the right consult with an attorney. What if that person cannot afford an attorney. When under the 5th does a person have the right to refuse to answer questions from investigators. Under what conditions can what a person says be used against them. Under the 5th Amendment does the government need to remind the person of those rights? If so, under what situations. All of those are aspects of the 5th Amendment's right against self incrimination that had to be more fully defined and were so under the Miranda decison. Later, Hello again, I apologize. I misinterpreted your question. I gave you the issues facing the court. You wanted the issues that the State of Arizona would raise to support its case. Arizona could argue that the defendant's confession was voluntary. He was not tortured. He was not deprived. He was not subjected to repeated interrogations over an extended period of time. The legal standard at the time of the defendant confessed to the crime is: was the confession voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. The defendant here wants a new standard created and applied to him retroactively. He wants his confession thrown out even though the police obtained it in accordance with the requirements of the 5th and 14th Amendments as they existed at that time. He wants us to hold the police to a new standard and thus overturn his conviction, even though the police acted in accordance with the legal standards. There is no prescendent for his position. The Constitional standard for whether a confession is voluntary is the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The confession that the defendant signed says at the begining that he is aware of his right against self incrimination and that he voluntarily waives that right. There is no evidence that any form of coercion was used to force the defendant to sign that confession which stated he was waiving his right against self incrimination. The State of Arizona could argue that the defendant was arrested in the morning hours and brought to the police station. There the victim of the rape identified him from a line up. He was then taken by 2 police officers to a separate room to be questioned. At first he denied his guilt. But shortly after, he orally confessed to the crime and explained it in detail. He then wrote a hand written confession and signed a brief statement. All of this was done in about 2 hours time without any threats, force or promises. All of that ocurred in a brief period of time during light hours. There is nothing in the facts or circumstances to indicate that his confession was anything but voluntary. Arizona could argue that no where in the Constitution does it say that a person has the right to an attorney during any part of the police investigation. The 6th Amendment provides for legal counsel at trial. The issue here is not an attorney present during trial, but rather an attorney present in the police station. There is no legal precedent for requiring that an attorney be present during any part of a police investigation. The argument that the questioning is a critical aspect has no legal precedent. Is questioning by the police any less of a critical aspect than questioning during the grand jury investigation. There is no right to an attorney during the questioning before the grand jury. The established legal standard is that if an defendant cannot afford an attorney he will be provided one by the Court during his trial.|||You have the right to remain silent, anything that you say may be used against you in a court of law, you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him/her present with you while you are being questioned, if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning if you wish. These words have become a commonplace in law enforcement across the United States. I think reviewing the following sample essays may help: http://essaytask.com/paper/Miranda_Right鈥?/a> http://essaytask.com/paper/Miranda_right鈥?/a> http://essaytask.com/paper/Miranda_vs.