Review of 'Miranda V Arizona', 'Brown V Board' and 'Gideon V Wainwrigh' Cases

A significant figure, Chief Justice Earl Warren, transformed and modified the judicial system during a deafening time for American Politics. Chief Justice Earl Warren had accomplished a great amount before being appointed Chief Justice. He was first elected the Attorney General of California where he carefully investigated and shut down activities that received immediate attention such as gambling, prostitution, bootlegging, and speakeasies. Once he became a public figure and gained support, Earl Warren ran for governor. During Warren’s early governorship, he was known for frugal spending, tax reductions, and the shaping of revenue supplies. He was involved with the elderly, mentally ill, and those who were injured during the war. Earl Warren served as the Governor of California for three consecutive terms of office. Chief Justice Earl Warren was later appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 after Warren had lost to Eisenhower and Richard Nixon in the election. Warren became the right-wing republican but soon became more liberal on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Warren had led numerous and significant cases. The three most important cases are the Brown V. Board of Education in 1954, Gideon V. Wainwright in 1963, and Miranda V. Arizona in 1966. These three cases have greatly effected the criminal justice community and the general public even today.

The first case, Brown V. Board of Education, declared separate schools for black and white students, which was clearly unconstitutional. This decision overruled the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 where it stated that there would be separate railway cars for blacks and

whites. On May 17, 1954, the Warren’s Courts came to a unanimous decision that declared that the educational facilities are inherently unequal. Because of this, racial segregation ruled as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While all, however, one justice rejected segregation. There used to be plenty of questions amongst the justices as to whether the Constitution gave the courtroom the strength to order its end, especially on account that the court, in various instances determined subsequent to Plessy, had upheld the doctrine of separate but equal as constitutional. Warren informed his colleagues after oral argument that he believed racial segregation violated the Constitution and that only one regarded black inferior to whites should the exercise be upheld. He didn’t push for a vote but instead, spoke to the justices and convinced them to talk with one another as he a common ground in which everyone could agree. Warren eventually had eight votes. Warren helped speed the drive to desegregate public schools, which frequently came under President Richard M. Nixon. Throughout his years as chief, Warren succeeded in retaining all decisions concerning segregation unanimous.

Gideon v. Wainwright used to be a landmark case in the United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that national courts are required beneath the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide tips in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to manage to pay for their personal attorneys. This had a large effect on law enforcement today because the presence of an attorney makes an officer’s job more difficult. It is quite important to note that there has been a Supreme Court ruling to this incident in Powell v. Alabama. Since then, the Supreme Court decision ordered that the council must be provided in every capital case. Gideon V. Wainwright extended that right to all people in every case. It can be quite difficult to determine whether or not this policy had a positive or negative on the Criminal Justice System. It was a big step away from the social order and a step forward towards civil liberties. At first, Earl Warren once was privately outraged at what he viewed police abuses that ranged from warrantless searches to forced confessions.

The third important case pertaining to Chief Justice Warren’s governing was Miranda v. Arizona. This was a very common indicator in the United States Supreme Court, therefore, the majority of people have heard of it. The courtroom held statements that were inculpatory and exculpatory in response to interrogation by using a defendant in custody and will, in fact, be admissible at trial. Only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was once informed of the right to consult with a lawyer beforehand and of the right against self-incrimination previous to questioning from the police, and also make it known that the defendant not only knows these rights but has willingly waived them. Miranda v. Arizona has become widely popular and how it has impacted how law enforcement works in the United States. Law enforcement now makes sure that the Miranda Warning is part of the protocol and be made sure that it is being announced to the suspects that way they know their rights.

The definition of Miranda Warning (1966) refers to “the constitutional requirement that once an individual is detained by the police, there are certain warnings a police officer is required to give a detainee”. The purpose of the Miranda Warning to guarantee that the suspect knows his or her right under the U.S Constitution and that they can recall them at any time during an interrogation or interview. As it is already known, the Miranda Warning needs to be said before any questioning, but, if a suspect says something before hearing the warning, that information can be used in court. As said before, this topic has been a great step forward towards civil liberties and away from the social order. Chief Justice Earl Warren was very keen on making sure law enforcement is fair and being held accountable for their actions.

Next to talk about is Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Before becoming Cheif Justice, Rehnquist was appointed a deputy attorney general for the Justice Department under Richard Nixon’s presidency. He spent two years by Nixon’s side trying to impress him by approaching major issues. Afterward, Nixon appointed him as an associate justice to the Supreme Court. In 1986, William Rehnquist became chief justice right after Chief Justice Warren Burger retired. As Chief Justice, Rehnquist tried to make the past right again by being concerned with certain abortion rights and affirmative action. Since Rehnquist is considered to be a conservative, he preferred a “formation” of federalism that prioritized the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states. Rehnquist strongly believed in states’ rights and made it shown to limit federal control, specifically towards the Fourteenth Amendment. One important thing to know is that Rehnquist did not approve of the decision that was made in the Brown v. Board of Education case. He did, in fact, approved and supported the opinions in the South Dakota v. Dole, meaning that he upheld Congress’s fund reduction to states that did not follow the national 21-year-old drinking age. There are cases that Rehnquist dealt with.

The first landmark case was Roe v. Wade. The case was about Roe filing a lawsuit against the district attorney of Dalla County, Texas, Henry Wade because of the abortion law and how it is illegal to have an abortion unless by a doctor’s orders to save that woman’s life. In the lawsuit filed, it allegedly stated that “the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment”.

(Roe v Wade 1971). The court finally declared that Roe’s reason was valid and that women should have the right to decide if they want to have an abortion only up until viability. The court defined viability as living outside the mother’s womb, or maybe before at 24 weeks. Since other states also had a strict abortion, Roe v. Wade provoked a national debate on whether abortion should be legal. In the end, Roe v. Wade has reshaped national politics which made the United States into a pro-life and pro-choice movement.

In conclusion, both Chief Justice Earl Warran and Chief Justice William Rehnquist have seen to be a part of major cases that have shaped our Supreme Court today. It is said that Chief Justice was allegedly a liberal or possibly was once a republican before changing sides when he became Chief Justice. He had made numerous decisions that a republican would not have. On the contrary, Chief Justice William Rehnquist was a true republican who supported states’ rights and tried to prevent government power. Even though both men were opposites, Chief Justice Warren was slightly more successful by manipulating other members of the Justice system to side with him. On the other hand, Chief Justice Rehnquist failed in his attempt to have an abortion and gay rights prevailed.